Delhi District Court
Keshav Garg vs . M. Rajendran & Ors. on 10 June, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANJUSHA WADHWA
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
KESHAV GARG VS. M. RAJENDRAN & ORS.
DAR NO. 592/16
Sh. Keshav Garg
S/o Sh. Ashok Garg,
R/o 7656/19, Gali No. 3, Naveen Nagar,
Jaisin Road, Hoibowl, Ludhiana, Punjab.
......Petitioner/Injured
Versus
1. Sh. M. Rajendran
S/o Sh. Muthu Swami,
R/o RZI 12, Block I, Tamil Enclave,
Dabri South West, Delhi.
2. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Jain
S/o Sh. Ram Prasad Jain,
R/o B-24, Krishna Kunj Ext. II,
Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Ms. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
10-15, 14th Floor, Vijaya Building,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
.....Respondents
DAR NO. 592/16 Page 1 of 22
Date of filing of DAR : 15.10.2016
Date of framing of issues : 23.02.2017
Date of concluding arguments : 31.05.2022
Date of decision : 10.06.2022
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation in the present Detailed Accident
Report (DAR) relates to injuries and permanent disability suffered by
petitioner in a road accident that took place on 27.06.2016, at about
12.30 pm, at Prithvi Raj Road Aurangzeb Lane crossing, Near 24 Prithvi
Raj Road, New Delhi, regarding which an FIR bearing no.62/16, under
Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered at PS Tughlak Road. The
offending vehicle involved in this case is a car bearing registration no.
DL-3CBA-2550, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven
by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with
respondent no. 3.
2. Succinctly put, facts of the case as per DAR, are that on the
aforesaid date, time and place of accident, the petitioner was going to
Ghalib Institute, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi at his workplace from
Gautam Nagar, Delhi on his motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-06Y-
9080 and when he reached at Prithviraj Road-Aurangzeb Lane Crossing
near Kothi no. 24 at Prithvi Raj Road, Delhi, all of a sudden, one car
bearing registration No. DL-3CBA-2550, which was coming from Taj
Mahal Hotel side took a right turn towards Aurangzeb Lane, and hit his
motorcycle due to which he fell down on the road and sustained grievous
injuries. It is further stated that after the accident, the petitioner was
removed to Dr. RML Hospital for treatment, where his MLC was
prepared.
3. It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 01.06.2017, the
defence of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was struck off as they
did not reply to the DAR.
4. The respondent no. 3/Insurance Company has filed reply cum
legal offer for a sum of Rs. 95,000/- for settlement, which was not
DAR NO. 592/16 Page 2 of 22
acceptable to the petitioner. The insurance company also took a plea that
it's a case of head on collision as per site plan and mechanical inspection
report and thus the accident was caused by sole negligence of the
petitioner or alternatively, he was guilty of contributory negligence. The
insurance company, however, admitted insurance of the vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-3CBA-2550 in the name of respondent no. 2 for a
period from 25.07.2015 to 24.07.2016.
5. On 23.02.2017, the following issues were framed by the Ld.
Predecessor of this tribunal as :-
1. Whether the injured sustained injuries in the
accident which occurred on 27.06.2016, at about 12.43
hrs, PR Road, Aurangzeb Lane Crossing Near 24 PR
Road, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of
vehicle No. DL-3CBA2550 being driven by respondent no.
1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with
respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
2. Whether the injured is entitled for compensation? If
so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. Heard arguments advanced by Sh. Ganesh P. Tripathi, Advocate
for the petitioner and Sh. Lokesh Kumar, Associate Counsel of Mohd.
Raghib, Advocate for respondent no.3/Insurance Company. However,
none has turned up on behalf of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2
for addressing final arguments. The case record has also been perused.
The finding on the aforesaid issues is reproduced in succeeding
paragraphs hereinafter.
ISSUE No. 1
1. Whether the injured sustained injuries in the
accident which occurred on 27.06.2016, at about 12.43
hrs, PR Road, Aurangzeb Lane Crossing Near 24 PR
Road, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of
vehicle No. DL-3CBA2550 being driven by respondent no.
1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with
respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
7. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. In order
DAR NO. 592/16 Page 3 of 22
to prove negligence of respondent no. 1, the petitioner has examined
himself as PW-1 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-
1/A wherein he has narrated the mode and manner of accident as well as
the injuries sustained by him and treatment taken thereafter.
8. During cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that he was driving
the motorcycle at the time of accident and was possessing a driving
license. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his
own negligence. He further denied the suggestion that the accident did
not take place due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle.
9. It is explicit from the testimony of PW-1 that the occurrence of
accident has not been disputed and the testimony of the witness in this
regard has gone unrebutted. Nothing material could be elicited from the
cross-examination of PW-1 to disbelieve or discard his testimony. The
testimony of PW-1 has been duly corroborated with the DAR filed by the
IO as Ex. PW1/7 (colly). Moreover, it has not been disputed that
respondent no. 1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for
offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram
Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303. has
observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points
towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has
been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in
the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the
liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
10. Perusal of site plan and mechanical inspection report shows
that it's not a case of head on collision as alleged by the insurance
company in its reply cum legal offer. The offending vehicle has hit the
motorcycle while taking a right turn towards Aurangzeb Lane. Further,
Respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped
into the witness box to rebut his involvement in the aforesaid accident,
which he has failed to do. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn
against the respondent no. 1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High
DAR NO. 592/16 Page 4 of 22
Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD
(Delhi) 310.
11. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings
conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court
and in civil matters, the facts are required to be established on
preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are
required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in
Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident
caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to
be done by the claimants and the claimants were merely to establish their
case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
12. In view of foregoing discussion, it is held that oral evidence
led on record by the petitioner on this issue is duly substantiated by the
documentary evidence i.e. chargesheet, and thus, it stands proved on
preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due
to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-
3CBA-2550 which was being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by
respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 at the relevant time of
accident. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
Whether the injured is entitled for compensation? If so,
to what amount and from whom?
13. As the issue no.1 has been proved in favour of the petitioner,
he has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered by
him in the accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to
pay the same are required to be decided.
14. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act
DAR NO. 592/16 Page 5 of 22
the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be
'just'. In injury cases, a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of
compensation i.e. pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343) has
laid down heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury
cases as:-
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have
made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the
injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
15. Having considered the ratio of aforesaid judgment, the
compensation payable to petitioner is being assessed hereinafter.
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
16. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A has tendered on
record his MLC as Ex. PW1/4 and copy of his discharge summary and
OPD cards as Ex. PW1/5(colly). As per MLC dated 27.06.2016 Ex.
PW1/4, the petitioner had sustained deep lacerated wound on left side of
neck 10cm in length, 4 cm wide while depth could not be assessed
because of active bleeding, multiple small lacerations over left arm,
DAR NO. 592/16 Page 6 of 22
forearm and elbow, 2 cm long laceration over palm surface of left index
finger with active bleeding and multiple abrasions over both knees. As per
discharge summary of Dr. RML Hospital Ex. PW1/5, the petitioner was
admitted in the said hospital on 27.06.2016 and was discharged on
14.07.2016. The discharge summary of petitioner further reflects that the
he was diagnosed with neck injury with clavicle fracture.
17. The petitioner has also tendered on record medical bills as
Ex. PW1/6 (colly) which are totalling to a sum of Rs. 66,391/-. During
cross-examination, PW-1 has denied the suggestion that the medical bills
filed by him are false and fabricated. Besides giving the aforesaid
suggestion, the respondents have led no evidence to prove that the
medical bills are forged and fabricated. Simple bald averment in this
regard is not suffice in the eyes of law. As per clause 28 of scheme for
Motor accident claims formulated by Delhi High Court on 08.01.2021 and
even otherwise, the Insurance Companies are duty bound to verify the
correctness/genuineness of the claim. In the absence of contrary
evidence on record, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of
medical bills which have been duly proved on record as Ex. PW1/6 (colly).
Hence, he is held entitled to sum of Rs. 66,391/- towards his medical
expenses.
(ii) Loss of actual earnings
18. The petitioner has claimed in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that at
the time of accident, he was working as Software Engineer and was
getting a salary of Rs. 83,000/- per month. He has further claimed that
due to the said accident, he was unable to do his work for about two
months. The petitioner has tendered on record his salary slip for the
month of October, 2016 as Ex. PW1/2 and leave certificate as Ex. PW1/3.
19 In order to prove the salary and leave availed due to injuries
sustained in the accident, the petitioner has examined Sh. Anurag
Saxena, Senior AVP-Product & Operations, M/s Sentieo India Pvt. Ltd. as
DAR NO. 592/16 Page 7 of 22
PW3 who has placed on record certificate of employment of petitioner as
Ex. PW3/A, sick leave certificate of petitioner as Ex. PW3/B, letter of
appointment as Mark A (colly), increment letter dated 11.04.2017 as Ex.
PW3/C, computerized salary slips for the period from April 2016 to
October 2017 as Ex. PW3/D (colly) and copy of bank statement for the
period from April 2016 to November 2016 as Ex. PW3/E (colly).
20. Perusal of salary slips Ex. PW3/D (colly) show that the
petitioner was getting a salary of Rs. 81,445/- in the month of June, 2016
after deduction of TDS of Rs. 8,555/-. As the accident took place on
27.06.2016, the salary of the petitioner at the time of accident was Rs.
81,445/- per month. Further, as per Ex. PW3/B, the petitioner was on sick
leave due to accident in the year 2016 for a duration of 66 days i.e. from
27.06.2016 to 31.08.2016. During cross examination, PW3 deposed that
the petitioner was on leave only for a period of two months and the salary
was paid to him for the said period.
21. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has considered the said aspect
in MAC App 812/2011 titled as Ramveer Singh Vs Rajesh Kumar and ors
decided on 30.11.2012 wherein it has been observed as:-
"LOSS OF LEAVE:
6. From the certificate Ex.PW1/4, it was established that the
Appellant was on leave from 16.12.2007(the date of the accident)
to 16.04.2009, that is, for a period of about 16 months. He was
again on leave for one month from 14.12.2009 to 14.01.2010
which was proved by the certificate Ex.PW1/5. The Claims Tribunal
instead of granting compensation on account of actual loss of
leave, granted a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on the
ground that the Appellant was paid salary during this period. A
victim of a motor vehicle accident cannot be made to suffer loss of
his full pay leave or the medical leave for the benefit of the
tortfeasor. An employee loses an opportunity for encashment of
leave at the time of his superannuation if the leaves are exhausted
during service. In the circumstances, the Appellant is entitled to be
paid full salary for the loss of leave."
22. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
DAR NO. 592/16 Page 8 of 22
the judgment dated 04.09.2012 passed in MAC App. No.215/2010,
Sandeep Mishra Vs. Ajay Kumar Yadav & Ors. It is thus amply clear
from the reading of aforesaid judgments that the petitioner is entitled to be
compensated for leaves availed by him due to accident irrespective of the
nature of leaves.
23. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, this
tribunal feels it just and reasonable to compensate him for loss of earning
equivalent to a period of 66 days. Therefore, under this head, he is
being awarded an amount of Rs. 1,79,179/- (Rs. 81445/30 X 66 days).
(iii) Loss of future earnings due to disability
24. The law with regard to grant of compensation due to
permanent disability and determination of functional disability etc. was well
settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay
Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein it has been held as under :-
"4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short)
makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that
compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately
restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object
of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result
of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and
equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the
damages objectively and exclude from consideration any
speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the
nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is
not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the
loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that
he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his
inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have
enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he
used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T.
Kunhikuttan Nair- AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control
(India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970
AC 467).
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the
actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to
first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of
the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of
the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding
compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The
second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of
DAR NO. 592/16 Page 9 of 22
work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find
out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any
kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities
and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he
was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser
scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or
can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of
a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional
disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a
driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may
virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do
carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in
government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss
of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he
could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of
earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or
carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far
less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any
compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the
claimant continues in government service, though he may be
awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a
consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant
may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for
discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was
earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be
shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser
emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under
the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the
reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when
compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning
capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to
award compensation separately under the head of loss of
amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a
result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded
under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life,
as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of
compensation. Be that as it may............."
25. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner has
examined Dr. Sanjay Meena as PW2 who has proved the disability
certificate of the petitioner as Ex. PW2/A and deposed that the petitioner
is a case of left brachial plexus injury with left upper limb monoparesis
leading to 48% permanent physical impairment in relation to left upper
limb. He further deposed that the petitioner has difficulty in doing work
DAR NO. 592/16 Page 10 of 22
with left hand and also not able to do computer work with left hand.
During cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that the disability is permanent
in nature. He denied the suggestion that petitioner is still able to do the
computer work with his left hand. He further denied the suggestion that
the disability assessed by the board is on higher side to help the
petitioner. However, PW-3 Sh. Anurag Saxena during cross examination
admitted that salary of the petitioner was increased and promotion was
also given to him after the accident. He deposed that the present salary of
the petitioner is Rs. 32 lacs per annum. He denied the suggestion that the
petitioner has not suffered any financial loss due to the injuries sustained
in the accident. He volunteered that the petitioner would have got one
more promotion, if he would have not met with an accident. He could not
tell the exact amount of salary which the petitioner would have got on one
more promotion. Regarding future prospects, PW-1 also admitted the
increase of salary after the accident. He volunteered that he has been
promoted in the month of September 2017 but due to accident his
promotion has been delayed for one year as his promotion was due in the
month of September 2016.
26. The conjoint reading of testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 coupled
with salary slips Ex. PW3/D (colly) envisage that the salary of the
petitioner has increased after the accident. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in
MAC App. 353/2011 titled as IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Anandi Kumar and Anr., decided on 11.03.2016 wherein the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi has reduced the multiplier of 15 to 9, which was applied by
the Tribunal on the premise that the claimant had no loss of employment
as he continued to work after the accident. The relevant observation
made in the said judgment is as follows:-
"5. This Court agrees with the submission of Insurance
Company that the claimant would be expected to continue
DAR NO. 592/16 Page 11 of 22
working till he attains the normal age (60) of superannua-
tion. The learned counsel for the claimant also fairly con-
ceded that the loss of future income is to be assessed on
the multiplier of 9 rather than 15 adopted by the tribunal.
The monthly loss on account of functional disability to extent
of 45% comes to (15,750 X 45/100) Rs.7088. Thus, the total
loss of future income on account of disability is calculated at
(7,088 X 12 X 9) Rs. 7,65,504/-.
27. On the other side, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has
placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satish Chandra Sharma & Anr.,
Civil Appeal No. 1579 of 2022 (@ SLP (C) No (s). 14350/2019, decided
on 23.02.2022. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as
under :-
"In view of the accepted position that the first respondent
had continued to work, we do not think the High Court
was correct in awarding compensation of Rs.56,44,378/-
(Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Three
Hundred and Seventy Eight only) by applying the
multiplier to the net salary payable to the first respondent.
The first respondent has continued to earn the monthly
salary he was earlier drawing, including increments,
except some allowances given due to the nature of
posting. The first respondent, at the time of the injury, was
56 years old and had about four years of service till his
retirement. The High Court also failed to notice that the
injury certificate did not relate to permanent disability in
the entire body, and had certified 75% disability in the
lower limbs. As noted above, the first respondent is not
DAR NO. 592/16 Page 12 of 22
immobilized. He can perform and undertake daily chores
without help and assistance.
.....................
Keeping in view the aforesaid position, along with the facts that the first respondent had undergone an operation and an implant had been fixed on his vertebrae causing him physical pain, discomfort and possible decrease in lifespan, and that he though entitled to pension and retirement benefits, has lost the opportunity to take up post-retirement employment, we deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation of Rs. 6,21,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Twenty One Thousand Only) by a further amount of Rs.3,79,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Seventy Nine Thousand Only). In other words, the first respondent is entitled to receive total compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) in all.The further compensation of Rs. 3,79,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh and Seventy Nine Thousand Only) would be paid within six weeks from today with interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application."
28. In the instant case, the petitioner has suffered 48% permanent physical impairment in relation to left upper limb. The income of the petitioner has increased after the accident. The deposition of PW-3 that the petitioner would have got one more promotion, if he would have not met with an accident does not inspire any confidence as he could not tell amount of salary which the petitioner would have received upon promotion. Similarly, deposition of PW-1 that his promotion has been delayed for one year is also not substantiated by any evidence. It has already been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment DAR NO. 592/16 Page 13 of 22 titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (Supra) that there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Having considering the legal position already discussed above and the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court Is of considered opinion that the petitioner has not suffered any functional disability due to the aforesaid disability.
(iv) Mental and Physical Shock, Pain and Sufferings & Loss of Amenities.
29. As stated above, the petitioner has suffered 48% permanent physical impairment in relation to left upper limb due to the accident. Though, it is not possible to exactly compensate him for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he had actually suffered because of the above injuries and disability, but an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each is being awarded to him towards mental and physical shock & for pain and sufferings. Further, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is also awarded to him towards the loss of amenities suffered by him during the said period of his treatment. Thus, he is awarded total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges
30. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A has claimed that he had spent more than Rs. 3 lakhs towards treatment, special diet and conveyance. However, he has not placed on record any documentary proof in this regard. Still this tribunal can very well take note of the requirement of conveyance for petitioner for frequently visiting the DAR NO. 592/16 Page 14 of 22 hospitals and doctors in connection with his treatment and special diet for his early recovery from the injuries suffered because of the accident. Hence, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is being awarded to the petitioner towards conveyance and Rs. 3,000/- per month for six months towards the requirement of special diet.
31. Besides the above, a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month for six months is also being awarded to the petitioner towards attendant charges. The petitioner is thus entitled to an amount of Rs.74,000/- (Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 18,000/- + Rs. 36,000/-) under this head.
(vi) Loss of marriage prospects
32. Keeping in view the nature and extent of disability, an inference can also be drawn that the marriage prospects of the claimant will certainly be affected and he will have difficulties in finding a suitable match. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is also awarded to the claimant under this head.
(viii) Disfiguration
33. The disability of the claimant has caused disfiguration to his body and thus, he is entitled to a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
Issue No.3/Relief
34. In view of foregoing discussion, the petitioner is thus awarded a sum of Rs. 8,69,570/- (Rs. 66,391/- + Rs. 1,79,179/- + Rs. 3,00,000/- + Rs. 74,000/- + Rs. 1,50,000/- + Rs. 1,00,000/-) (Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Seventy only) along with 6% interest from the date of filing of DAR. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the DAR NO. 592/16 Page 15 of 22 award amount.
RELEASE
35. Out of amount awarded, 50% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 36 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 36 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account opened/to be opened near the place of his residence, as directed vide order dated 23.01.2018 and the remaining 50% amount is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him.
36. The disbursement to the petitioner is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
37. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of petitioner i.e. the bank account of petitioner shall be individual account and not a joint account.
38. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the petitioner and the above amount shall be released in account of petitioner by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
39. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing DAR NO. 592/16 Page 16 of 22 System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of his residence.
40. The maturity amount of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of petitioner.
41. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
42. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). 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 the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
43. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
44. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
45. In view of foregoing discussion, all the respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the petitioners, and respondent no. 3 being insurer of offending vehicle is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today. In case respondent no. 3 fails to deposit the award amount within 90 days from DAR NO. 592/16 Page 17 of 22 today, respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay beyond 90 days from today and in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with cost of Rs.5,000/-
46. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
47. The copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent by email. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
48. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
49. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.(supra) on 08.01.2021, are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 27.06.2016
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Accident NA Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) NA
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver NA
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the owner NA
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim NA Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form VIB NA from the Victim (s) DAR NO. 592/16 Page 18 of 22
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 15.10.2016 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency No on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not given Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Not given deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) of the Legal offer filed but not offer of the Insurance Company. acceptable to the petitioners.
14. Date of the award 10.06.2022
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 Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque 23.01.2018 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 passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along Yet to furnish with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o 7656/9, Gali No. 3, Claimant(s) Naveen Nagar, Jasian Road, Hoibowl, Ludhiana, Punjab.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yet to furnish account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the award to No ascertain his/their financial condition?DAR NO. 592/16 Page 19 of 22
50. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 30.09.2022.
Announced in the open court. (Manjusha Wadhwa) on 10.06.2022 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: The summary of computation in the prescribed format DAR NO. 592/16 Page 20 of 22 SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN INJURY CASES IN FORM XVI
1. Date of accident : 27.06.2016
2. Name of the injured : Keshav Garg
3. Age of the injured : 24 years and around 25 days
4. Occupation of the injured : Pvt. job
5. Income of the injured : Rs.81,445/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: Dr. RML Hospital
8. Period of hospitalization : As stated above
9. Whether any permanent disability?: 48% permanent disability.
10. Computation of Compensation Sr.No. Heads Amount awarded
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 66,391/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 18,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 36,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.1,79,179/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require Nil
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs.1,00,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Rs. 1,00,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 1,50,000/-
(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 Nil and nature of disability as permanent or temporary DAR NO. 592/16 Page 21 of 22
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil expectation of life span on account of disability.
(iii) Percentage of loss of Nil
earning relation to
disability
(iv) Loss of future income Nil
14. Total Compensation Rs.8,69,570/-
15. Interest Awarded 6% pa from date of filing of
DAR till deposit in 30 days and
9% after 90 days.
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 2,95,034.38
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 11,64,604.38(rounded
off to Rs. 11,65,000/-)
18. Award amount released 50% share
19. Award amount kept in the FDRs/ 50% share
Motor Accident Claims Annuity
Deposit (MACAD)
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Through bank
amount to the claimant (s)
21. Next date for compliance of the 30.09.2022
award
(Manjusha Wadhwa)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
10.06.2022
DAR NO. 592/16 Page 22 of 22