Delhi District Court
Sh. Pramod Kumar (Injured) vs Ranvir Singh (Driver) on 20 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 342/2020
CNR No. DLCT010035902020
Sh. Pramod Kumar (Injured)
S/o Sh. Ram Chandra,
H. No. A580, Raja Vihar,
Badli, Delhi, Libas Pur,
North West Delhi110042
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Ranvir Singh (Driver)
S/o Late Sh. Kashi Ram,
R/o L22, Budh Vihar,
PhaseII, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (Owner)
Shastri Nagar Depot,
East, Delhi.
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Having Office at:
1/11955, Muskan Building,
Naveen Shahdara, Delhi.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR: 17.03.2020
Arguments heard on: 04.04.2022
Date of Award: 20.04.2022
Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 1 of 42
Award dated 20.04.2022
A W A R D:
(1) The present Detail Accident Report (DAR) has been filed on
17.03.2020 and has been registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition
in respect of an accident which took place on 09.01.2020 at 10:20 AM,
in between Street No. 4 & 5, New Rohtak Road, Anand Parbat
Industrial Area, Delhi wherein the injured Pramod Kumar sustained
Grievous Injuries.
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) The Facts in brief as they emerge from the DAR are that on 09.01.2020 at about 10:20 AM, Sh. Pramod Kumar alongwith his friend Sh. Karan Kumar were proceeding from Kundal Hotel towards New Rohtak Road, Delhi on scooty bearing registration No. DL8SCC 6782, which was being driven by Karan Kumar and Pramod Kumar was the pillion rider. When they reached in between Street No. 4 & 5, New Rohtak Road, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, Delhi then all of a sudden a Metro Feeder Bus bearing registration No. DL1B0237 which was being driven by the respondent no.1, came while overtaking the vehicles at a high speed in rash and negligent manner and in violation of all traffic rules and norms, hit the scooty. As a result of the impact, the petitioner Pramod Kumar suffered crush injury of right thigh and degloving injury around right knee with major skin loss and also suffered abrasions, wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body. The injured was removed to Jeewan Mala Hospital, New Rohtak Road, Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 2 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 New Delhi where his MLC was prepared after which he was taken to Bhagwati Hospital, Sector13, Rohini, Delhi where he received treatment.
(3) No written statement/ reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh and respondent no.2 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation despite grant of repeated opportunities and imposition of cost. It is evident from the record that the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh had appeared once i.e. on 17.03.2020 when the DAR was filed but thereafter he did not appear nor filed any written statement. Pursuant to the same, the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh was proceeded exparte by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2021. In so far as the respondent no.2 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation is concerned, Sh. Nagender Kumar Operation Manager of DMRC had appeared before this Court on 22.11.2021 but did not file any reply/ written statement to the DAR on which the defence of respondent no.2 was struck off. (4) The respondent no.3 National Insurance Company Ltd. has filed its reply wherein preliminary objections have been raised that there the driver of the Scooty bearing registration No. DL8SCC6782 was not having any Driving License at the time of the accident and the Investigating Officer has not seized driving license of the Scooty driver and the injured was also not following Motor Vehicle Act and Rules due to which reason the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the injured/ petitioner. It is further pleaded that the offending vehicle bearing No. DL01B0237 was insured with the Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 3 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 respondent no.3 Insurance Company vide policy No. 366003311810002667 valid for the period from 11.03.2019 to 10.03.2020 and policy was issued in favour of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. on certain terms and conditions and therefore, the liability of the respondent no.3 Insurance Company is limited subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further pleaded that the petitioner cannot claim any third party insurance from the respondent no.3 and in case the driver of the alleged offending vehicle bearing No. DL01B0237 was not having valid Driving License or the said vehicle was not having valid RC, Permit, Authorization, fitness and was driving the said vehicle in contravention of various provisions of Motor Vehicle Act as amended upto date. It is pleaded that no notice of any accident was ever been received by the respondent no.3 in respect of the accident. It is further pleaded that as per the MLC, the injured sustained head injury due to road accident and hence, it is clear that the injured was not wearing helmet at the time of the accident due to the reason that he has received head injury therefore, the driver and pillion rider were fully negligent for this accident and not liable for any compensation. It is also pleaded that as per the MLC bearing No. 11/2020 dated 09.01.2020, the injured had received fracture head fibula and right leg injury and was admitted in Bhagwati Hospital same day and discharge on 13.01.2020 whereas it is evident from the discharge slip of Bhagwati Hospital that reason of admission is injury over right knee. It is further pleaded that thereafter the injured was admitted in the hospital from 22.02.2020 to 26.02.2020 with reason for admission Crush Injury Thigh but as per Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 4 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 previous medical documents and MLC, no crush injury due to the accident dated 09.01.2020. It is pleaded that as per record no corelation in accidental injury and crush injury and hence, the insurance company is not liable for compensation in favour of the injured. It is further pleaded that the claimant/ injured himself was negligent and driver of the scooty was driving his scooty very fast speed and without following the traffic rules and regulations and they both are themselves responsible for the said accident. It is also pleaded that as per the FIR, the scooty dashed the Metro Feeder Bus from behind and the driver of the scooty failed to maintain sufficient distance, did not observe traffic rules and was entirely negligent for the alleged accident, more so when there is no point of impact on Metro Feeder Bus as per mechanical inspection report. It is further pleaded that the owner of the vehicle bearing No. DL01B0237 (Metro Feeder Bus) has not produced duty slip / roaster of the driver and depot inout schedule for the above mentioned Bus on the date and time of the accident. It is pleaded that the DAR is also incomplete as the income, occupation proof, affidavit of claimant, discharge summary of all the hospitals, complete treatment record etc. have not been provided with the DAR to the respondent no.3. It is further pleaded that as per Chapter 5.11 (4) of the Claim Agreed Procedure, the respondent no.3 Insurance Company prayed that the permission under Section 170 of M.V. Act be granted to contest the case on all ground available to the alleged driver and owner without prejudice to Section 147, 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 5 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 case the other respondents i.e. driver and owner of the alleged offending vehicle fail to contest the claim or there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made.
ISSUES SETTLED:
(5) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 22.11.2021 passed by this court the following issues were settled:
i. Whether the injured / petitioner Parmod Kumar had sustained Grievous injury in the road traffic accident which had taken place on 09.01.2020 at 10:20 AM in between Street No.4 & 5, New Rohtak Road, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, Delhi on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL1B 0237 (Mini Bus) driven by the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh? (OPP) ii. Whether the injured / petitioner is entitled to compensation?
If yes, to what extent and from whom? (OPP) iii. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove his case the injured/ petitioner Parmod Kumar has examined himself as PW1 as his sole witness. In so far as the respondent no.3 Insurance Company is concerned, they have not examined any witness and the Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company has made a specific statement pursuant to which the evidence of the Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 6 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 respondent no.1 was closed.
(7) For the sake of convenience, the testimony of the witness examined by the petitioner is put in tabulated form as under:
S. Witness Deposition
No.
Petitioner / Injured
1. Sh. Parmod PW1 Sh. Parmod Kumar is the injured in the present
Kumar (PW1) case who in his examinationinchief by way of affidavit
which is Ex.PW1/A has corroborated what has been earlier stated in the DAR. He has placed his reliance upon the following documents:
1. Photocopy of his Aadhar Card which is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Original Discharge Summary dated 13.01.2020 which is Ex.PW1/2.
3. Original Discharge Slip dated 25.01.2020 which is Ex.PW1/3.
4. Original Discharge Slip dated 26.02.2020 which is Ex.PW1/4.
5. Original prescription slips which are Ex.PW1/5 (Colly, 2 pages).
6. Original medical bills of Rs.1,92,889/ which are Ex.PW1/6 (Colly, running into 137 pages).
7. Photographs which are Ex.PW1/7 (Colly, running into 4 pages).
8. Complete set of DAR which is Ex.PW1/8 (Colly, running into 145 pages).
9. Bill summary which is Mark A. In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3, the witness has deposed as under: That he was sitting on scooty bearing No. DL8S CC 6782 which was being driven by Sh. Karan Kumar at the time of the accident.
That he has filed driving license of Karan Kumar in the Court.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that he has not filed Driving License of the scooty driver Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 7 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 namely Karan Kumar on record.
That after the accident, he was taken to a hospital situated at Sarai Rohilla but he does not remember the name of the hospital.
That he was conscious when he was taken to the hospital.
That the MLC was prepared at his instance.
That he has not filed any income proof on record.
That it is wrong that he was not working anywhere at the time of the accident.
That he has not filed any document on record to show that he had engaged any attendant and given Rs.54,000/ to the attendant.
That it is wrong that he has not sustained crush injury due to the road accident dated 09.01.2020. That it is wrong that all the medical treatment record and bills related to crush injury are false and fabricated.
That it is wrong that the scooty driver was driving scooty very rashly and negligent manner at the time of the accident.
That it is wrong that scooty driver was driving his scooty very speedily and dashed in the bus.
That it is wrong that his affidavit Ex.PW1/A is false and fabricated.
That it is wrong that he has not incurred Rs.3,50,000/ on his treatment, medicine, special diet and conveyance etc. That he was not wearing helmet at the time of accident.
That he was not negligent at the time of accident and the accident had not occurred due to negligence of the scooty driver and he himself. That it is wrong that there is no loss of income due to the accident.
In so far as the respondents are concerned, the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh was proceeded exparte; defence of the respondent no.2 DMRC was struck off whereas the respondent no.3 National Insurance Co. Ltd. has not examined any witness.
Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 8 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(8) I have heard the arguments advanced before me and considered the material on record. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the petitioner and the Insurance Company. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Whether the injured / petitioner Parmod Kumar had sustained Grievous injury in the road traffic accident which had taken place on 09.01.2020 at 10:20 AM in between Street No.4 & 5, New Rohtak Road, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, Delhi on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL1B 0237 (Mini Bus) driven by the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh? (OPP) (9) Onus of proving the above issue was upon the petitioner. The case of the petitioner Parmod Kumar is that on 09.01.2020 at about 10:20 AM Sh. Pramod Kumar alongwith his friend Sh. Karan Kumar were going from Kundal Hotel towards New Rohtak Road, Delhi on a scooty bearing registration No. DL8SCC6782 which was being driven by Karan Kumar and Pramod Kumar was the pillion rider. When they reached in between Street No. 4 & 5, New Rohtak Road, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, Delhi then all of a sudden a Metro Feeder Bus bearing registration No. DL1B0237 which was being driven by the respondent no.1, came while overtaking the vehicles at a high speed in rash and negligent manner and in violation of all traffic rules and norms and hit the scooty. As a result of the impact, the petitioner Pramod Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 9 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 Kumar suffered crush injury of right thigh and degloving injury around right knee with major skin loss and also suffered abrasions, wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body. The injured was removed to Jeewan Mala Hospital, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi where his MLC was prepared after which he was taken to Bhagwati Hospital, Sector13, Rohini, Delhi where he received treatment.
According to the petitioner, the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Metro Feeder Bus bearing registration No. DL1B0237 by the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh. (10) The respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh (Driver) has not filed any written statement and stopped appearing before this Court/ Tribunal pursuant to which he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.11.2021. The respondent no.2 DMRC (Owner) also did not file any reply to the DAR and hence, their defence was struck off vide order dated 22.11.2021. In so far as the respondent no.3 Insurance Company is concerned, they claimed that the accident had taken place on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver of scooty bearing No. DL 8SCC6782 who was driving the same without any Driving License and also dashed the same into the Metro Feeder Bus from behind. (11) I have considered the rival contentions. I may note that in order to prove his case the petitioner Parmod Kumar has examined himself as his sole witness as PW1 whereas the Insurance Company has not examined any witness. I have perused the record including the DAR and the documents attached along with the same. My findings and Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 10 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 observations are as under:
Identity of the respondent no.1 as Driver of the offending vehicle:
(12) Coming first to the identity of the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh as the Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Scooty bearing No. DL 8SCC6782, I may note that perusal of the copy of chargesheet shows that on 09.01.2020 DD No. 20A was received at Police Station Anand Parbat regarding accident pursuant to which the IO reached the spot where he met the injured Parmod Kumar and his friend Karan Kumar along with the accident scooty bearing No. DL8SCC6782. The Metro Feeder bus bearing No. DL1B0237 and its driver namely Ranvir Singh were also found at the spot. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of statement of the injured Parmod Kumar who had alleged that the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Metro Feeder Bus No. DL1B0237 who was trying to overtake the scooty. The respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh has been specifically named in the FIR. There is nothing on record to show that the injured Pramod Kumar and respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh were known to each other prior to the accident in question and there is no reason why the injured would implicate the respondent no.1 in the present case. Even otherwise, the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh has not appeared before this Court/ Tribunal nor filed any written statement to the DAR to dispute, controvert or rebut the case of the petitioner in this regard. This being the background, I hold that the Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 11 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 identity of the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh as driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Metro Feeder (Mini Bus) bearing No. DL1B 0237 stands established.
Rashness and Negligence attributed to the respondent no.1: (13) Now coming to the aspect of Rashness and Negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh, the case of the petitioner Pramod Kumar is that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of Metro Feeder (Mini Bus) bearing No. DL1B0237 by the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh. On the other hand, the case of the respondent no.3 Insurance Company is that the driver of the Scooty bearing No. DL8SCC6782 namely Karan Kumar was driving the scooty without Driving License and was himself negligent in driving the same since the scooty had dashed the Mini Bus from behind.
(14) It is a settled law that a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the standard proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 12 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 for awarding compensation. In a criminal case the rashness and negligence against the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas in a civil case or MACT claim for grant of compensation the principle involved is preponderance of probability. It would be sufficient if the surrounding circumstances and the material on record establishes the allegations of rashness and negligence made against the driver of the offending vehicle.
(15) I have gone through the evidence on record and the documents attached along with the DAR. I may note that the accident in question had taken place on 09.01.2020 at 10:20 AM and the FIR was registered on the same date at 9:15 PM on the basis of the statement of injured Pramod Kumar who had informed the IO that he alongwith his friend namely Karan Kumar were going on a scooty bearing registration No. DL8SCC6782, which was being driven by Karan Kumar and he (Pramod Kumar) was the pillion rider and when they reached in between Street No. 4 & 5, New Rohtak Road, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, Delhi when all of a sudden a Metro Feeder Bus bearing registration No. DL1B0237 which was being driven by the respondent no.1, came while overtaking their vehicle at a high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit their scooty as a result of which their scooty got imbalanced and they both fell down. The relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under:
"..... Aj dinank 09.01.2020 ko sam,ay karib 10:20 AM par main apne dost ke sath Kundan Hotel se New Rohtak Road par Scooty No. DL8SCC Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 13 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 6782SE GALI No. 5, Industrial Area me ja rahe they or mera dost Karan Kumar S/o Surender Kumar R/o A101, DDA Flat, Iahangirpuri, Delhi age19 years uprokt scooty ko chala raha tha tatha main scooty ke piche baitha hua tha. Jab hamari scooty gali no. 4 va 5 ke bich pahunchi to ek Metro Feeder Bus No. DL1B0237 ke chalak ne apni bus ko tex raftar va laparwahi se chlakar overtake kiya, jiske karan hamari scooty ka santulan bigad gaya or hum gir gaye or mere ko mere dost ne uthaya. Fir mere dost ne 100 no. par call kar di or humko PCR ki gaadi Jeewn Mala Hospital lekar gayi or dakhil karya. Poochtach par Bus chalak ka naam Rabeer Singh S/o Kanshi Ra, R/o L22, Sharma Colony, sultan Puri, CBlock, NorthWest, Delhi Maloom chla....."
(16) The testimony of the injured Parmod Kumar (PW1) has gone unrebutted and uncontroverted since the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh has not led any evidence to the contrary nor filed any written statement and rather stopped appearing before this Tribunal. (17) In so far as the argument raised by the Insurance Company that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of scooty by Karan Kumar is concerned, I may note that the copies of Mechanical Inspection Reports of both the offending vehicle as well as the accidental vehicles have been attached along with the DAR which I have duly perused.
(18) The Mechanical Inspection Report of the alleged offending bus bearing No. DL1B0237 show that there were no fresh damages on Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 14 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 the same. However, the Mechanical Inspection Report of the Scooty bearing No. DL8SCC6782 show that there following damages:
1. Right side front body beading scratched.
2. Right side rear rest carrier slightly scratched.
(19) The above Mechanical Inspection Report of the Scooty bearing No. DL8SCC6782 confirms the case of the petitioner Parmod Kumar that while the offending Mini Bus was trying to overtake, it hit their scooty as a result of which their scooty got imbalanced and the scooty fell down on its right side and corresponding injuries were caused to the petitioner on his right leg. The said Mechanical Inspection Reports also defeat the case of the respondent no.3 Insurance Company that the scooty had dashed the Mini Bus from behind. Had the scooty being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Mini Bus from behind, I am sure there must be corresponding damages on the rear portion of the bus, which is not the case. Merely because the copy of Driving License of Karan Kumar, the driver of the accidental scooty, has not been seized by the IO, does not mean that he was not having a Driving License more so when there is nothing on record to suggest that the IO had given a notice to Karan Kumar to produce his Driving License.
(20) By application of the principles of Preponderance of Probability coupled with the circumstantial evidence on record in the form of Mechanical Inspector Report of the accidental scooty and the Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 15 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 offending Mini Bus, I hereby hold that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Mini Bus bearing No. DL1B0237 by the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh.
Nature of Injuries caused to the injured and disability if any:
(21) Now coming to the aspect of injuries caused to the injured Pramod Kumar. According to the petitioner, apart from the fractures of fracture at lateral femoral condyle and comminuted fracture at upper end of fibula, he had also suffered crush injury of right thigh and degloving injury around right knee with major skin loss and took treatment for the same from Bhagwati Hospital, Sector13, Rohini, Delhi. In this regard, the petitioner has placed his reliance upon the Discharge Summaries prepared at Bhagwati Hospital, Rohini, Delhi which are Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4.
(22) Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 National Insurance Company has vehemently argued that as per the MCL and X Ray reports the petitioner had only suffered fractures and not the crush injury. She has pointed out that the petitioner remained admitted in Bhagwati Hospital from 22.02.2020 to 26.02.2020 with reason for admission as crush injury thigh but as per the previous medical documents and MLC, the petitioner had not suffered any crush injury due to the accident and hence, the petitioner is not liable for compensation in respect of the crush injury.
Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 16 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 (23) I have considered the rival contentions. I have gone through the copy of MLC of the injured Pramod Kumar prepared at Jeewan Mala Hsoital shows that the injured was brought to the hospital by HC Ram Singh of PS Anand Parbat on 09.01.2020 at 11:10 AM with alleged history of road traffic accident as told by the patient himself. On local examination there was superficial to deep abrasion over right knee, right leg, ankle region with swelling with tenderness. As per the Xray reports there was a fracture at lateral femoral condyle and comminuted fracture at upper end of fibula. The Discharge Summary Ex.PW1/2 of Bhagwati Hospital, Rohini, Delhi shows that the petitioner was admitted to the hospital on the same day i.e. 09.01.2020 with care of injury over right knee and was diagnosed with complex avulsion fracture of right fibula with foot drop with degloving injury around right knee with blackening of skin. Here, I may note that degloving injury happens when a large piece of skin and the layer of soft tissue right under it partially or completely rip from the body, which is evident in the present from the photographs of the injured placed on record. As per the Discharge Summaries Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4 the injured remained admitted in Bhagwati Hospital initially from 09.01.2020 till 13.01.2020 and thereafter from 15.01.2020 till 25.01.2020 and again got admitted on 22.02.2020 till 26.02.2020. It has been specifically mentioned in the Discharge Summary Ex.PW1/4 that the injured was a followup case of crush injury right thigh/ leg. Merely because the injury has been mentioned as Crush Injury in the said Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 17 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 Discharge Summary does not mean that it has no connection with the injuries suffered by the injured in the accident more so when the first Discharge Summary shows that the injured had suffered degloving injury around right knee with blackening of skin. I, therefore, hold that the argument so raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company does not hold good.
(24) I may further note that the injuries sustained by the injured have been opined to be Grievous in nature by the doctors. There is no dispute with regard to the same nor any evidence to the contrary has come on record. Hence, I hold that the petitioner Pramod Kumar had suffered Grievous injures in the accident in question. (25) In so far as the aspect of Disability is concerned, I note that no Disability Certificate or Disability Report has been placed on record to show that the petitioner Pramod Kumar had suffered any disability on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. (26) In view of the above and coupled with the fact that the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh has been made an accused in FIR No. 03/2020, PS Anand Parbat under Section 279/338 IPC wherein he has been arrested, I hereby hold that the injured Parmod Kumar had sustained Grievous injuries in the road traffic accident which had taken place on 09.01.2020 at 10:20 AM in between Street No.4 & 5, New Rohtak Road, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, Delhi on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL1B0237 (Mini Bus) driven by the respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh.
Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 18 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 (27) Issue no.1 is disposed off accordingly.
Issue No.2: Whether the injured/ petitioner is entitled to compensation? If yes, to what extent and from whom?
(OPP) (28) Onus of proving the above issue was upon the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of the accident, he was working as Web Designer in a Factory at Gali No. 3, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, Delhi and drawing a salary of Rs.17,000/ per month but on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he could not attend his job for eight months. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was unable to move from the bed and to attend the calls of nature, he had engaged a person for his proper care for which he had paid Rs.300/ per day and total Rs.54,000/ for his entire services. The petitioner is claiming a total compensation of Rs.5,69,369/ under the various heads. (29) In so far as the respondent no.3 National Insurance Co. Ltd. is concerned, they have not offered any amount to the petitioner towards compensation.
(30) I have considered the arguments made before me and the documents on record. Coming first to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, I may observe that the petitioner has placed on record the various medical bills/ cash memos which are collectively Ex.PW1/6 (running into 137 pages) details of which are as under:
Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 19 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 Sr. Details of Bill Date Exhibit No. Amount in Rs. No.
1. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 09.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1070.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
2. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 09.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1232.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
3. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 09.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 220.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
4. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 10.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 600.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
5. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 10.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 340.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
6. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 10.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 930.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
7. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 11.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 500.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
8. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 11.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 280.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
9. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 11.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 7790.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
10. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 11.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 360.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
11. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 11.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 840.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
12. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 11.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 750.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital) Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 20 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022
13. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 12.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 555.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
14. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 12.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 740.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
15. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 12.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 660.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
16. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 12.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 30.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
17. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 12.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 180.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
18. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 12.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 50.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
19. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 13.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 490.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
20. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 13.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 680.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
21. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 13.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 3961.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
22. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 13.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 37.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
23. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 15.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 160.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
24. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 15.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 166.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
25. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 15.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 120.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 21 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 Hospital)
26. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 15.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 700.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
27. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 15.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 900.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
28. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 15.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 225.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
29. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 16.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 440.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
30. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 16.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1000.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
31. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 16.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 800.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
32. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 16.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 100.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
33. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 16.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 100.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
34. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 17.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 680.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
35. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 17.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 280.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
36. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 17.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 330.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
37. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 17.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1800.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital) Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 22 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022
38. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 17.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 4101.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
39. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 17.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 100.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
40. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 18.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 135.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
41. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 18.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 445.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
42. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 18.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 850.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
43. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 19.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 598.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
44. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 19.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 550.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
45. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 19.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 165.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
46. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 19.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 200.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
47. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 19.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 850.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
48. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 20.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 110.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
49. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 20.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 930.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
50. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 20.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1000.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 23 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 Hospital)
51. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 20.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 570.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
52. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 21.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 900.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
53. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 21.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 165.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
54. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 21.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1250.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
55. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 11.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 190.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
56. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 11.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 500.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
57. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 15.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 300.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
58. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 15.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 360.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
59. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 15.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 260.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
60. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 20.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 500.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
61. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 20.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 600.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
62. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 22.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1710.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital) Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 24 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022
63. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 22.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 450.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
64. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 22.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 16000.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
65. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 22.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 15000.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
66. Receipt issued by Bhagwati 22.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 39000.00 Hospital in respect of (Colly.) advance payment
67. Receipt issued by Bhagwati 22.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 26000.00 Hospital in respect of (Colly.) advance payment
68. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 22.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 2270.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
69. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 22.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 4789.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
70. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 22.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 4140.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
71. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 22.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 960.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
72. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 22.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 180.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
73. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 22.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 200.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
74. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 23.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1741.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
75. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 23.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 175.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 25 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 Hospital)
76. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 24.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1500.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
77. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 24.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 285.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
78. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 25.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 150.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
79. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 25.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1428.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
80. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 25.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 26.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
81. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 26.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 220.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
82. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 26.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 544.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
83. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 26.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 438.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
84. Tax Invoice of Soham Medi 27.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 322.00 Pharma (Colly.)
85. OPD Receipt of Bhagwati 29.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 500.00 Hospital (Colly.)
86. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 29.02.2020 Ex.PW1/6 380.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
87. Invoice of Apollo Pharmacy 02.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 2234.00 (Colly.)
88. OPD Receipt of Bhagwati 03.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 500.00 Hospital (Colly.) Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 26 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022
89. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 03.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 235.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
90. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 03.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 490.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
91. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 03.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 415.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
92. OPD Receipt of Bhagwati 06.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1000.00 Hospital (Colly.)
93. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 06.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 196.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
94. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 06.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 290.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
95. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 09.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 400.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
96. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 09.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 490.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
97. OPD Receipt of Bhagwati 09.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1000.00 Hospital (Bhagwati Hospital) (Colly.)
98. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 12.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 200.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
99. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 12.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 235.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
100. OPD Receipt of Bhagwati 12.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1000.00 Hospital (Colly.)
101. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 12.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 990.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital) Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 27 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022
102. Cash memo of Soham Medi 16.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 796.00 Pharma (Colly.)
103. OPD Receipt of Bhagwati 16.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1000.00 Hospital (Colly.)
104. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 16.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 151.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
105. Cash Memo of Soham Medi 17.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 417.00 Pharma (Colly.)
106. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 19.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 431.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
107. OPD Receipt of Bhagwati 19.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1000.00 Hospital (Colly.)
108. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 23.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 198.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
109. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 23.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 222.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
110. Cash Memo of Soham Medi 26.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 738.00 Pharma (Colly.)
111. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 30.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 550.00 Health Foundation (Colly.)
112. OPD Receipt of Bhagwati 30.03.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1000.00 Hospital (Colly.)
113. Receipt of Shree Radhey 01.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1059.00 Gobind Pharmaceuticals Pvt. (Colly.) Ltd.
114. Invoice of Medical Bureau 01.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 422.00 Pharmacy (Colly.)
115. OPD Receipt of Bhagwati 02.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1000.00 Hospital (Colly.)
116. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 02.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 100.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital) Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 28 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022
117. Cash Memo of Soham Medi 03.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 412.00 Pharma (Colly.)
118. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 06.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 130.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
119. OPD Receipt of Bhagwati 06.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1000.00 Hospital (Colly.)
120. OPD receipt of Bhagwati 09.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1000.00 Hospital (Colly.)
121. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 09.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 120.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
122. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 09.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 190.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
123. Invoice of Medical Bureau 11.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 177.00 Pharmacy (Colly.)
124. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 13.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 70.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
125. OPD receipt of Bhagwati 13.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1000.00 Hospital (Colly.)
126. Cash Memo of Soham Medi 15.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 229.00 Pharma (Colly.)
127. Tax Invoice of Sarvodaya 17.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 70.00 Health Foundation (Bhagwati (Colly.) Hospital)
128. OPD receipt of Bhagwati 17.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1000.00 Hospital (Colly.)
129. OPD receipt of Bhagwati 20.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 500.00 Hospital (Colly.)
130. Cash Memo of Soham Medi 20.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 433.00 Pharma (Colly.)
131. Cash Memo of Soham Medi 22.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 239.00 Pharma (Colly.) Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 29 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022
132. OPD Receipt of Bhagwati 23.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 500.00 Hospital (Colly.)
133. OPD Receipt of Bhagwati 27.04.2020 Ex.PW1/6 500.00 Hospital (Colly.)
134. Cash Memo of Soham Medi 01.05.2020 Ex.PW1/6 161.00 Pharma (Colly.)
135. OPD receipt of Bhagwati 01.05.2020 Ex.PW1/6 300.00 Hospital (Colly.)
136. Cash Memo of Soham Medi 08.05.2020 Ex.PW1/6 666.00 Pharma (Colly.)
137. OPD Receipt of Bhagwati 12.05.2020 Ex.PW1/6 300.00 Hospital (Colly.)
138. OPD Receipt of Bhagwati 23.05.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1000.00 Hospital (Colly.) Total 1,91,889/ (31) The only dispute raised by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 Insurance Company is that the petitioner is not entitled to the medical expenses in respect of the treatment taken by him for the crush injury which has no connection with the injuries suffered by the injured in the accident in question. In this regard, this Court/ Tribunal has already held that the said argument of the Ld. Counsel does not hold good since the first Discharge Summary of the injured which is Ex.PW1/2 confirms that the injured had suffered a degloving injury around right knee with blackening of skin in the accident.
Therefore, I hold that the injured Pramod Kumar is entitled to the compensation towards medical expenses to the tune of Rs.1,91,889/ (Rupees One Lac, Ninety One Thousand, Eight Hundred Eighty Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 30 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 Nine Only) in respect to the above bills.
(32) In so far as the Special Diet expenses and Conveyance are concerned, the petitioner has claimed that he had incurred around Rs.3,50,000/ towards his treatment, medicines, special diet and conveyance etc. However, no bifurcation of the said amount has been given by the petitioner nor any bills towards special diet have been placed on record and hence, a notional sum of Rs.10,000/ is being awarded.
(33) Coming next to the Conveyance Charges, again the petitioner has not placed on record any documents in the form of bills issued by the transporter to show that any amount towards conveyance has been paid by him and hence, a notional sum of Rs.10,000/ is being awarded.
(34) In so far as the Nursing/ Attendant Charges are concerned, the petitioner in his affidavit of evidence has claimed that he had engaged a person as attendant and paid him a total sum of Rs.54,000/ at the rate of Rs.3,00/ per day for six months. In this regard, I may note that only a vague and non specific averment has been raised in the affidavit of evidence. The details of the attendant whose services the petitioner he had availed, has not been mentioned nor any such person has been called to Court to prove the said aspect nor any bills/ receipts issued to such an Attendant has been placed on record. In fact, the petitioner has in his crossexamination specifically admitted that he has not filed any document on record to show that he had engaged any Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 31 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 attendant and given Rs.54,000/ to the attendant. Therefore, a notional sum of Rs.10,000/ is awarded.
(35) Now coming to the aspect of Loss of Income of the petitioner/ injured Pramod Kumar. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of accident he was working as Web Designer in a Factory at Gali No. 3, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, Delhi and drawing a salary of Rs.17,000/ per month but on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he could not attend his job for eight months. (36) In this regard, I may observe that the petitioner has not placed on record any document in the form of Salary Slip, Income Tax Return or Bank Statement etc. showing that he was earning Rs.17,000/ per month. He has not provided the name of the factory in which he was working nor placed on record any certificate issued by the factory to show that he was working as a Web Designer. In fact, the petitioner has not filed any document/ certificate of his educational/ technical qualifications. The petitioner has in his crossexamination admitted that he has not filed any income proof on record. Therefore, there being no proof or documents showing the income of the injured/ petitioner, I hold that the minimum wages for unskilled worker prevailing at the time of accident on 09.01.2020 i.e. Rs.14,842/ (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Two only) shall be considered as income of the injured/ petitioner Parmod Kumar. Further, keeping in view the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, I hold that the petitioner shall be entitled to loss of income of Six Months.
Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 32 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 (37) Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees)
Expenditure on Treatment 1,91,889/
Expenditure on Conveyance 10,000/
Expenditure on Special Diet 10,000/
Attendant Charges 10,000/
Loss of Income 14,842 x 6 = 89,052/
Mental & Physical Shock, Pain & Suffering 50,000/
Total 3,60,941/
Round off: 3,61,000/
(38) I may note that interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy reported in 2012 ACJ 48 (SC). In the interest of justice, it is held that claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 17.03.2020 till realization.
Disbursement:
(39) The Financial Statement of the petitioner Parmod Kumar was recorded by this Court/ Tribunal on 23.03.2022 according to which his family comprises of himself, his wife and two minor daughters.
Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 33 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 According to the petitioner, his monthly family expenses are about Rs.10,000/ per month.
(40) Keeping in view the above, I hereby direct that a sum of Rs.61,000/ plus entire interest amount be released to the petitioner/ injured Parmod Kumar and the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs) shall be put in Thirty Monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 30 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued and the same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. The petitioner Parmod Kumar shall have liberty to seek the release of Rs.61,000/ plus entire interest amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
(41) The above FDRs shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 34 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.
Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 35 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 (42) In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed FormatXVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 09.01.2020
2. Name of the Injured: Parmod Kumar
3. Age of the Injured: 30 Years
4. Occupation of the Injured: Not proved
5. Income of the Injured: Rs.14,842/ (As per Minimum Wages)
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken by Jeewanmala Hospital and the injured: Bhagwati Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization: 09.01.2020 to 13.01.2020, 13.01.2020 to 15.01.2020 & 22.02.2020 to 26.02.2020
9. Whether any permanent Nil disability? If yes, give details:
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment 1,91,889/
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance (no 10,000/ document) Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 36 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022
(iii) Expenditure on Special Diet (no 10,000/ document)
(iv) Cost of Nursing/ attendant (no 10,000/ document)
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of income (for six months) 14,842 x 6 = 89,052/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any Nil special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and physical 50,000/ shock
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and Nil nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation Nil of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in Nil relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income x % Nil earning capacity x Multiplier) Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 37 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022
14. TOTAL 3,60,941/ Round Off: 3,61,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 6%
16. Interest amount upto the date of award 45,302/ (2 Years, 1 Month & 3 Days)
17. Total amount including interest 4,06,302/
18. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 40
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para no. 40
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in para amount of the claimant(s) no. 40
21. Next date for compliance of the award 27.05.2022 Liability:
(43) In so far as the liability to pay the award amount is concerned, since the offending vehicle bearing No. DL1B0237 was being driven by respondent no.1 Ranvir Singh; respondent no.2 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation is the registered owner and was insured with respondent no.3 National Insurance Co. Ltd. therefore all shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners but since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 i.e. National Insurance Co. Ltd. as on the day of accident, it is respondent no.3 National Insurance Co. Ltd. who is ultimately held liable to indemnify the insurance and to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner under the statutory liability.
Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 38 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 (44) Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
(45) Since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 National Insurance Co. Ltd. therefore, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,61,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs Sixty One Thousand only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 17.03.2020. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS to the bank account of the MACT01, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Complex Branch, Delhi and while making the payment through one of the aforementioned modes, Insurance Company shall also furnish particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision as well. Insurance Company is further directed to submit copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank along with receipt qua depositing/ transferring of award amount. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to petitioner(s) in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc., if any, in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 39 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 (46) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.3 i.e. National Insurance Co. Ltd. for compliance within the time granted. Respondent No.3 National Insurance Co. Ltd. is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with upto date interest with a copy to the counsel for the claimant namely Sh. B.L. Khurana Advocate, Chamber No. 149150A, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Mobile No. 9818037468). (47) Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 27.05.2022 in the event of nonreceipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(48) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 20.04.2022 PO, MACT01, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 40 of 42
Award dated 20.04.2022
FORM - XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 09.01.2020 2 Date of filing of FormI - First Accident Not Applicable being a case of Report (FAR) 2020 3 Date of delivery of FormII to the Not Applicable being a case of victim(s) 2020 4 Date of receipt of FormIII from the Not Applicable being a case of Driver 2020 5 Date of receipt of FormIV from the Not Applicable being a case of Owner 2020 6 Date of filing of the FormV - Interim Not Applicable being a case of Accident Report (IAR) 2020 7 Date of receipt of FormVIA and Form Not Applicable being a case of VIB from the Victim(s) 2020 8 Date of filing of FormVIII - Detail 17.03.2020 Accident Report (DAR) Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction No warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Company 14.09.2020 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company admitted his report Yes within 30 days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 41 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022 13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the No legal offer was filed by the offer of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company 14 Date of award 20.04.2022 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their Yes place of residence?
16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card and the 17.03.2020 direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced The claimant produced his PAN the passbook of their savings bank Card bearing No. EGJPK6527H, account(s) near the place of their residence Aadhar Card and copy of Bank alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and PassBook but the bank passbook Aadhaar Card? was produced without necessary endorsement.
18 Permanent residential address of the As per Award claimant(s).
19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account(s) is near their place of residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at Yes, the Financial Statement of the the time of passing of the Award to petitioner was recored on ascertain his/their financial condition? 23.03.2022 (Dr. KAMINI LAU) PO, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 20.04.2022 Parmod Kumar Vs. Ranvir Singh & Ors., MACT No. 342/2020 Page No. 42 of 42 Award dated 20.04.2022