Delhi District Court
Naveen Kumar vs . Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 1 Of 34 on 24 December, 2021
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 1 of 34
IN THE COURT OF MS. JASJEET KAUR, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
New No. 4202012
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010006752012
Sh. Naveen Kumar, S/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh,
R/o H.No.1032, B1, Jain Nagar, Karala, Delhi.
........ Petitioner/claimant
Vs.
1. Sh. Prem Kumar, S/o Sh. Anoop Kumar,
R/o C308, Vijay Vihar, PhaseI, Sector5
Delhi.
....... Drivercumowner /R1
2. National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Laxmi Tower, Second Floor,
C1/3, Nainiwal Bagh,
Azadpur Commercial Complex,
New Delhi110 033.
.....Insurance Co./R2.
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.10.2012
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 24.12.2021
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.12.2021
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 2 of 34
Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 11.07.2012
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 15.10.2012
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 15.10.2012
investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. N.A.
before the Metropolitan Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 15.10.2012
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance Company 15.10.2012
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 15.10.2012
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes.
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed N/A.
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes.
filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the N/A.
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by 15.10.2012
the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld.
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Counsel for Insurance
Company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the Not fairly computed
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the compensation.
the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 34
Company? If so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of 11.12.2012
the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 24.12.2021
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent of No
the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 08.03.2019
to open saving bank account (s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar Card
and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque
book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 23.09.2021
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) As mentioned above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Naveen
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC Kumar savings bank
Code a/c No. 40454804359
with SBI, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi
IFSC : SBIN0000726
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) is Yes
near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the Claims 110002427,
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be SBIN0010323, SBI,
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order dated Rohini Courts, Delhi
18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO
842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 4 of 34
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim proceedings have emanated from a Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) filed on 15.10.2012 with reference to FIR No.184/12 registered at PS Keshav Puram in respect of commission of offences causing hurt by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road punishable U/s 279/337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) wherein subsequent charge sheet for the alleged commission of offences of causing grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle punishable u/s 279/338 IPC against one Prem Kumar was also filed in respect of grievous hurt sustained by one Sh. Naveen Kumar(hereinafter referred to as the injured/ the petitioner/the claimant). The learned Predecessor Court had vide order dated 15.10.2012 treated the DAR as petition u/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short referred to as 'M.V. Act').
2. The brief facts of the case as discernible from the DAR and documents of the petitioner are that petitioner Naveen Kumar was a Guest Teacher employed at Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Pooth Kalan, Rohini, Sector20, Delhi and on 11.07.2012 after appearing in an interview at JNU, while going from Pooth Kalan, Rohini to Delhi University via Keshav Puram on his motorcycle make Yamaha Fazer bearing registration No.DL8SAT0816, at about 04:45 p.m., he had stopped his motorcycle at Keshav Puram red light from where he was trying to take turn towards Shastri Nagar upon the traffic signal turning green for him when another motorcycle make Royal Enfield bearing registration No. DL8SAX2635 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') being driven by its driver Prem Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the driver of the offending vehicle/Respondent Number 1/R1) at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, had hit against his motorcycle from right side with great force after jumping the said red light, as a consequence of which the petitioner had fell Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 5 of 34down on the road and was immediately removed to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitam Pura, Delhi where his medical examination was conducted vide MLC No.1105/12 wherein it had been mentioned that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the case accident. Subsequently, the petitioner was admitted at Jaipur Golden Hospital, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi on 12.07.2012 and was discharged therefrom on 18.07.2012 after undergoing surgery whereby femoral interlock had been done in his right thigh for management of fracture of shaft of right femur bone.
3. R1/Sh. Prem Kumar, son of Anoop Kumar who was the driver as well as the owner of the offending vehicle had not filed his written statement despite sufficient time being given to him in this regard. Subsequent to the lapse of statutory period for filing of written statement as well as on account of non appearance in the court, R1 was ultimately proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.05.2018.
4. National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as respondent number 2 or R2) had filed its written statementcumlegal offer wherein it had been admitted that offending vehicle/motorcycle was insured with its vide policy no.36804/31/11/6200002428 valid with effect from 15.07.2011 to the midnight of 14.07.2012 and therefore, the offending vehicle was insured on the date of accident, that is, on 11.07.2012 and the policy stood valid in favour of R1. The respondent No.2 had claimed in his defence that although the vehicle of R1 was duly insured as on the date of occurrence of the alleged accident, however, the petitioner had failed to furnish valid documents pertaining to treatment undertaken by him, his income and his employment, and therefore, the petitioner's income was supposed to be assessed in terms of minimum wages fixed by the Labour Department of Government of Delhi for the purpose of computing compensation payable to the petitioner. The insurance company had Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 6 of 34offered to settle the matter with the petitioner for a full and final amount of Rs.57,846/.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Predecessor Court vide order dated 06.04.2013: (1) Whether on 11.07.2012 at about 4:13 pm, at Chandni Red Light, Road No.37, Keshav Puram, Delhi, one motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 8SAX2635, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Parvesh Kumar and hit the petitioner and caused injuries to him? (2). Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(3). Relief.
6. After the framing of issues, opportunities were given to both the parties to prove their respective versions of the case by leading evidence in support of the same. Petitioner/PW1 Naveen Kumar examined himself as PW1 and Dr. Sumit Kumar Goel, Sr. Resident (Orthopedic) of Dr. B.S.A. Hospital in support of his version of the case whereas the respondents No.2 had not examined any witness in support of their version in the case.
7. I have heard the final arguments from Ms. Babita Tyagi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sh. Ravi Satija, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The respondents No.1, who was exparte, had failed to appear in the Court for addressing final arguments in the present matter. I have also perused the record. My issue wise findings based on my appreciation of the evidence led by the parties are reproduced herein below:
8. Issue wise findings: ISSUES No. 1: Whether on 11.07.2012 at about 4:13 pm, at Chandni Red Light, Road No.37, Keshav Puram, Delhi, one motorcycle bearing registration No. DL8SAX2635, which was being driven rashly and Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 7 of 34negligently by Parvesh Kumar and hit the petitioner and caused injuries to him?
The onus to prove this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities is upon the petitioner.
8.1 Petitioner/claimant has examined himself as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he had reiterated the facts narrated in the DAR and had claimed that his motorcycle bearing registration No.DL8SAT0816 being driven by him on the correct side of the road at a normal speed had been hit by the offending vehicle which was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by R1 and had jumped the red traffic signal before colliding against his stationery motorcycle from the right side at the red light of Keshav Puram in the area of PS Keshav Puram.
8.2 The petitioner had further deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that he was a 23 years old person possessing good health, a sound mind and a robust physique at the time of having met with the case accident and occupationally, he had secured employment as a Guest Teacher in Government Boys Senior Secondary School, two days prior to the occurrence of the case accident at a fabulous salary. However, after having sustained injuries in the case accident, he had remained confined to bed during his prolonged treatment and apart from having suffered mental shock, trauma and agony, he had also experienced deterioration in his general health and loss of energy, as a consequence of which, he was unable to perform his duties as a teacher as efficiently as he used to discharge the same prior to the occurrence of the case accident. He had claimed in his evidence by way of affidavit that he had spent more than Rs.50,000/ on his treatment and Rs.20,000/ each special diet and conveyance whereas he had spent another sum of Rs.10,000/ towards attendant charges. PW1 Naveen Kumar had relied upon the following Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 8 of 34documents in support of the averments made by him in his evidence by way of affidavit :
i) Medical bills of the petitioner Ex.PW1/1(colly),
ii) Copy of FIR Ex.PW1/2,
iii) Copy of his MLC certified by IO Ex.PW1/3,
iv) His Original Discharge Summary Ex.PW1/4,
v) Original joining letter regarding his job Ex.PW1/5,
vi) Photocopy of his driving licence Ex.PW1/6 and
vii) Photocopy of his election identity card Ex.PW1/7
viii) Original estimate of his future medical expenses Ex.PW1/8.
8.3 In his crossexamination by Sh. R.P. Mathur, learned counsel for insurance company/R2, PW1 deposed that he had not been given any offer letter or appointment letter by the Education Department. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW1/5 was a fake and forged document and he had never joined the alleged school as a Guest Teacher. He further denied the suggestion that the estimate of his future treatment expenditure Ex.PW1/8 was a forged and fake document and he did not require any future treatment. He also denied the suggestion that he had not spent any money on medical treatment, special diet, conveyance as well as on availing the services of a medical attendant. He further denied the suggestion that he was neither gainfully employed at the time of occurrence of the case accident nor he had suffered any financial loss. He also denied the suggestion that he himself was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and due to this reason, he had met with an accident.
8.4 PW1 was not cross examined on behalf of R1 and thus, his testimony had remained unrebutted and unchallanged in respect of R1. R1 shall thus be Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 9 of 34deemed to have admitted the testimony of PW1 to the effect that the case accident was caused by the offending vehicle being driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner.
8.5 PW2 Dr. Sumit Kumar Goel, Senior Resident, Orthopedic Department at Dr. B.S.A. Hospital deposed on behalf of Dr. Gurvinder Singh, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopedics at his hospital. He clarified that the patient Naveen Kumar, aged 29 years had been medically examined by a Board of Doctors for the purpose of ascertaining his permanent disability and after examination, disability certificate No.1427 dated 04.12.2018 Ex.PW2/A bearing signatures of Dr. Gurvinder Singh had been issued by the Board wherein it had been categorically mentioned that the petitioner had suffered 10% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb with diagnosis of post traumatic stiffness of right hip. He further clarified that the petitioner would feel difficulty in sitting cross leg and taking turns. He stated that the petitioner would remain capable of working as a teacher with some difficulty.
R1 had not availed the opportunity given to him by the court to cross examine PW2 as he had already been proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.05.2018 and had not appeared in the court for cross examining PW2. Besides, learned counsel for R2 had also failed to appear in the Court to cross examine PW2.
8.6 No material contradiction or discrepancy has appeared in the evidence by way of affidavit of PW1 and PW2 to discredit their version and thus it has been established that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 and thereby 10% permanent disability had been sustained by the petitioner. PW1 is an injured himself who had sustained grievous injuries in the alleged accident. He seems to be a reliable and truthful witness whose testimony has remained unrebutted and unchallenged on account Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 10 of 34of failure of the respondents No.1 to cross examine him. 8.7 The copy of criminal case record filed by the IO also prima facie reveals that the case FIR No. 184/12 was registered at PS Keshav Puram for the commission of offence punishable u/s 279/337 IPC in respect of the case accident and that subsequently, the charge sheet for the commission of offences punishable u/s 279/338 IPC was also filed against R1/drivercumowner of the offending vehicle.
8.8 The issue no. 1 is only to be proved by claimant beyond preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the charge sheet filed against R1 for the commission of offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC can also be relied upon to establish that the case accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1. In the said circumstances, from the testimony of PW1/petitioner Naveen Kumar and other record including charge sheet filed against R1 in the criminal court, it has been clearly proved on the scale of preponderance of probabilities that the case accident was caused at the above said date, time and place and in the above said manner due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 and thereby grievous injuries had been sustained by the petitioner.
Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents accordingly.
9. Issue No. (2): Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
In view of my findings on issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1 resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation in respect of medical expenses, conveyance expenses, special diet charges, etc. incurred by him. I shall now examine the entire evidence including the documents of the petitioner for the Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 11 of 34purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled.
9.1 Petitioner had filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A wherein he had reiterated that due to the case accident, he had sustained grievous injuries. The testimony of the petitioner regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him has been corroborated through clinching medical evidence in the form of his MLC bearing No.1105/2012, prepared at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitam Pura, Delhi detailing the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and his discharge summary Ex.PW1/4 prepared at Jaipur Golden Hospital, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner had undergone a surgery whereby femoral interlock procedure had been done in his right thigh for management of fracture of shaft of femur bone of his right leg. Also, as per the record the petitioner was examined regarding the nature and extent of permanent disability suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in the case accident at Dr. Baba Sahab Ambedkar Hospital, Sector6, Rohini, Delhi wherein Dr. Gurvinder Singh, Assistant Professor in Department of Orthopedic had given a finding to the effect that the petitioner had sustained 10% permanent disability in his right lower limb due to the injuries sustained in the case accident. 9.2 Besides, PW2 Dr. Sumit Kumar Goel, Sr. Resident, Orthopedic has not been cross examined on behalf of R1 and R2 regarding nature and extent of permanent disability suffered by the petitioner and as such, his testimony has remained unrebutted and unchallenged in this respect.
Accordingly, in view of the nature of injuries and the extent of permanent disability suffered by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to following compensation under various heads.
10. Medical Expenses.
10.1 The petitioner has claimed in his evidence that he had spent more than Rs.50,000/ on his medical treatment in relation to the case accident. Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 12 of 34Subsequently, in the calculation sheet filed on behalf of the petitioner at the stage of final arguments, the medical expenses of the petitioner have been reflected as Rs.1,66,324/. He has, however, proved on record copy of his medical bills as Ex.PW1/1 (colly). A perusal of the said bills reveals that the same pertains to the July, 2012, that is, the period when the petitioner had undergone a surgery whereby femoral interlock procedure had been done in his right thigh for management of fracture of shaft of femur bone of his right leg. The aggregate amount of these bills is Rs.1,46,329.95/. No other bill pertaining to treatment taken by the petitioner from Jaipur Golden Hospital or elsewhere at the time of accident has been proved on court record. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded an sum of Rs.1,46,329.95/ as compensation towards medical expenses under this head.
11. Special Diet and Conveyance 11.1 Petitioner as PW1 has claimed in his evidence that he had spent more than Rs.50,000/ on his medical treatment in relation to the case accident. He has further claimed in his evidence by way of affidavit that he had incurred expenses more than Rs.20,000/ each on special diet and conveyance. He has, however, not endeavoured to prove the expenses incurred by him on special diet and conveyance by leading any documentary evidence in the form of prescription of special diet by the doctor or dietitian, transport bills and bills of purchases made towards special diet such as nutritional supplements etc. In such circumstances, the entitlement of the petitioner to special diet charges and conveyance charges has to be determined in accordance with the nature of injures sustained by the petitioner.
11.2 Petitioner/PW1 was not crossexamined on behalf of R1. Petitioner Naveen Kumar had claimed in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A that he had sustained grievous injuries in the case accident and was operated at Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini whereby femoral interlock procedure had been done in his right Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 13 of 34thigh for management of fracture of shaft of femur bone of his right leg . He had further claimed in his evidence by way of affidavit that after having sustained injuries in the case accident, he was not in a position to work efficiently and properly in the manner as he used to work before the accident. 11.3 The testimony of the petitioner regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him has been corroborated through clinching medical evidence in the form of his MLC bearing No.1105/2012, prepared at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitam Pura, Delhi and his discharge summary Ex.PW1/4 prepared at Jaipur Golden Hospital, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner had undergone a surgery whereby femoral interlock procedure had been done in his right thigh for management of fracture of shaft of femur bone of his right leg. Also, as per the permanent disability certificate issued by Dr. Baba Sahab Ambedkar Hospital, the petitioner had sustained 10% permanent disability in his right lower limb due to the injuries sustained in the case accident.
11.4 In view of above said discussion, regarding injuries and fracture sustained by the petitioner as well as the permanent disability suffered by him, it can be safely presumed that the petitioner must have required certain special diets for speedy recovery and must have also incurred expenses on travelling to the hospital from his residence and viceversa during the treatment period. Besides, in view of the grievous nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the permanent disability sustained by him, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner must have remained under treatment for at least a period of six months. Accordingly, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and by computing the period of his treatment to be approximately six months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/ is granted to the petitioner under this head including Rs. 20,000/ each for special diet and conveyance.
12. Attendant Charges Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 14 of 3412.1 Petitioner as PW1 has claimed in his evidence by way of affidavit that he had spent Rs.10,000/ as charges for availing services of a medical attendant during the period of his treatment. He has however not endeavoured to prove the expenses incurred by him on hiring a medical attendant by leading any documentary evidence in the form of bill of the agency providing medical attendants on hire or receipts of payment made by him to the concerned attendant or the agency through which the attendant had been hired by him. He has also not examined in the court the medical attendant concerned or the representative of the agency through which he had hired the medical attendant to establish that, in fact, he had engaged such attendant for his care and look after and had paid monthly charges to the said attendant for availing his services. In such circumstances, the entitlement of the petitioner to claim compensation towards attendant charges has to ascertained in accordance with the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner.
12.2 In this context, a perusal of the MLC of the petitioner Ex.PW1/3 reveals that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in the case accident. The discharge summary of the petitioner prepared at Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini prima facie establishes that the petitioner had undergone a surgery whereby femoral interlock procedure had been done in his right thigh for management of fracture of shaft of femur bone of his right leg. Also, as per the court record, the petitioner was examined regarding the nature and extent of permanent disability suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in the case accident at Dr. BSA Hospital, Sector6, Rohini, Delhi vide disability certificate cum assessment sheet Ex.PW2/A wherein it had been categorically mentioned that the petitioner had suffered 10% permanent locomotor disability in relation to his right lower limb with diagnosis of post traumatic stiffness of the right hip due to the injuries sustained in the case accident.
12.3 In view of above said discussion, regarding injuries and fracture Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 15 of 34sustained by the petitioner as well as the permanent disability suffered by him and also in view of the computation of the probable period of treatment of the petitioner to be about six months, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner must have required services of the medical attendant during the treatment period. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/ is granted as compensation to the petitioner under this head as attendant charges.
13. Compensation due to permanent disability/Loss of future earning capacity due to disability 13.1 Petitioner as PW1 has claimed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that he had sustained grievous injuries and permanent disability in right lower limb due to injuries sustained in the case accident. 13.2 Petitioner/PW1 deposed that he was working as a Guest Teacher in a Government school in Delhi on contract basis on payment of Rs.150/ per period and had worked in the said school for two days during which he had earned Rs.750/ per day. He was not cross examined on behalf of R1 regarding the nature of his job. However, he has not examined any witness from the concerned school or Education Department to prove his appointment as a Guest Teacher. He has also not placed on court record any appointment letter issued in his favour by the Education Department to establish his appointment as a Guest Teacher in a Government school by the Directorate of Education. He has placed on record one letter issued by the Vice Principal of Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, Sector20, Rohini, Delhi Ex.PW1/5 wherein it had been mentioned that the petitioner had worked as a Guest Teacher in their school for two days on daily emoluments of Rs.750/ each. However, the said letter does not prove the fact that the petitioner had been hired as a permanent or contractual teacher by the Education Department and as such, the said letter Ex.PW1/5 cannot be relied upon by this court to arrive at a finding about the monthly income of the petitioner.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 16 of 3413.3 The petitioner had also placed on record a copy of his marksheet issued by National Institute of Open Schooling to establish that he had passed Secondary School Examination in the year 2005. Subsequently the petitioner had also filed his marksheets and degree certificate issued by University of Delhi in respect of having completed Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts in Hindi. The said marksheets have been duly verified by the IO from the issuing authority, that is, the University of Delhi. In the absence of any other reliable documentary evidence led by the petitioner to prove his monthly or annual income, the monthly income of the petitoiner has to be calculated as per the minimum wages payable to a graduate workman in the city of Delhi as on the date of accident, that is on 11.07.2012 which was Rs. 9282/.
13.4 Monthly income of the petitioner is accordingly computed as 9,282/. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of his Aadhar Card, which mentions the date of birth of petitioner as 14.10.1988. The date of accident was 11.07.2012. Hence, the petitioner was aged about 23 years and 08 months 27 days at the time of accident.
13.5 A perusal of the MLC of the petitioner Ex.PW1/3 reveals that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries in the case accident. Besides, the discharge summary Ex.PW1/4 of the petitioner prepared at Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini prima facie establishes that the petitioner had undergone a surgery whereby femoral interlock procedure had been done in his right thigh for management of fracture of shaft of femur bone of his right leg. Also, as per the record the petitioner was examined regarding the nature and extent of permanent disability suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in the case accident at Dr. BSA Hospital, Sector6, Rohini, Delhi vide disability certificate Ex.PW2/A wherein it had been categorically mentioned that the petitioner had suffered 10% permanent locomotor disability in relation to his right lower limb with diagnosis of post traumatic stiffness of right hip due to the injuries sustained in the case Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 17 of 34accident.
13.6 In order to establish the veracity of findings mentioned in his disability certificate Ex.PW2/A, the petitioner had examined as PW2 Dr. Sumit Kumar Goel, Senior Resident, Orthopedic Department at Dr. B.S.A. Hospital who has categorically deposed that the disability certificate No.1427 dated 04.12.2018 Ex.PW2/A bearing signatures of Dr. Gurvinder Singh had been issued by the Medical Board of his hospital in the case of the petitioner and the same contained a finding to the effect that the petitioner had suffered 10% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb with diagnosis of post traumatic stiffness of right hip. He had further clarified that the petitioner would feel difficulty in sitting cross legged and taking turns. He had also stated that the petitioner would remain capable of working as a teacher with some difficulty. PW2 had not been cross examined by R1 and R2, and therefore, as such, his testimony has remained unrebutted and unchallenged in respect of nature and extent of permanent disability sustained by the petitioner. 13.7 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent order in case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO 842/2003, date of order 09.03.2018 has inter alia held as follows:
"6.4 The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, education and other factors.
6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps:
(i) The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 18 of 34
disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The claimant is totally disabled, earning any kind of livelihood, or
b) 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
c) Whether he was prevented all 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."
13.8 In the present case, the petitioner had suffered permanent disability to the tune of 10% in relation to his right lower limb. In his evidence by way of affidavit, petitioner had claimed that on account of injuries sustained in the case accident, he was not in a position to work as efficiently and properly as he used to work prior to the accident. The petitioner was not cross examined by the R1 on this aspect. Besides, the petitioner has examined Dr. Sumit Goel as PW2 who reiterated that the petitioner had sustained 10% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb and would remain capable of working as a school teacher with some difficulty. The said doctor was not cross examined on behalf of both Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 19 of 34respondents regarding the likelihood of difficulty in discharging duties to be faced by the petitioner in aftermath of permanent disability sustained by him. 13.9 For discharging duties as a school teacher, the petitioner was required to have loco motor abilities so as to enable him to go from class to class for teaching Hindi in the school premises and in view of the 10% permanent disability suffered by him, the petitioner was likely to face some difficulty in functioning as a Guest Teacher due to restricted mobility. Therefore, the efficacy of the petitioner in performance of his duty was likely to be adversely effected due to permanent disability sustained by him. However, the petitioner would remain capable of doing his job even after the accident despite difficulty in walking/mobility.
13.10 In view of the above discussion regarding the injuries suffered by the petitioner with permanent disability, the functional disability of the petitioner in relation to his whole body and the effect of permanent disability on his actual earning capacity is taken as 5 %.
14. Addition of Future Prospects.
14.1 In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to addition of future prospects to his monthly income, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 20 of 34salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 21 of 34
(.... Emphasis Supplied) 14.2 Reference is also made to the case of Sanjay Oberoi vs Manoj Bageriya, MAC APPEAL 829/2011 decided on 03.11.2017 & Prem Chand vs Shamim Husain & Ors, MAC.APP. 1003/2017 decided on October 11,2018 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
14.3 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Oberoi (Supra) after referring to the judgment of the constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017 granted element of future prospects of increase in the income in a case where the income of the petitioner was notionally assessed on the basis of minimum wages with functional disability @ 10%.
14.4 In the case in hand, the petitioner was earning daily emoluments as Guest Teacher or self employed graduate workman and thus while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
14.5 The age of the petitioner, as discussed above, in the present case was about 23 years 08 month and 27 days and he was a Guest Teacher or a self employed person. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgement in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioner would be entitled to an addition of 40% of the established income as he was below the age of 40 years at the time of his accident.
14.6 The monthly income of petitioner is thus calculated as Rs. 9,282/ +40% of 9,282/ which comes to Rs.9,282/ +3,712 = Rs.12,994.80. 14.7 The age of petitioner at the time of accident was about 23 years 08 Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 22 of 34
months and 27 days. In view of the age of the petitioner, the relevant multiplier of "18" is to be adopted as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61(vi) in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
14.8 The compensation is accordingly assessed towards loss of earning capacity at Rs. 1,40,343.84 (after rounding of Rs.1,40,344/) [(Rs.12,994.80/per month x12 months x 18 (age multiplier) x 5/100(functional disability)].
15. Loss of Amenities of Life.
15.1 The MLC of the petitioner which is Ex.PW1/3 shows that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries. The discharge summary of the petitioner of Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini prima facie establishes that the petitioner had undergone a surgery whereby femoral interlock procedure had been done in his right thigh for management of fracture of shaft of femur bone of his right leg. 15.2 Also, as per the record the petitioner was examined regarding the nature and extent of permanent disability suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in the case accident vide disability certificate cum assessment sheet Ex.PW2/A wherein Dr. Gurvinder Singh, Assistant Professor in Department of Orthopedic had given a finding to the effect that the petitioner had sustained 10% permanent disability in his right lower limb due to the injuries sustained in the case accident.
15.3 In view of my foregoing discussion regarding the above mentioned grievous injuries suffered by the petitioner, his permanent disability and by considering the probable period of treatment of the petitioner to be about 6 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/ is granted under the said head.
16. Future Medical Expenses 16.1 The petitioner has claimed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that he had already incurred a sum of more than Rs. 50,000/ Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 23 of 34
on his medical treatment and he was likely to incur another sum of Rs.50,000/ as charges for undergoing a surgery for removal of a nail inserted in his right femur for management of fracture of his right femur bone. He has placed on record an estimate given to him by a consultant Dr. Palash Gupta of Jaipur Golden Hospital containing estimate amount of expenditure which the petitioner was likely to incur on undergoing a surgery for removal of a nail inserted in his right femur for management of fracture of right femur bone. Although in the future medical expenses/estimate Ex.PW1/8, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was required to get the nail implanted in his right femur removed within one and a half years with effect from 13.09.2012, the date on which the said estimate had been issued. However, it is not clear from record as to whether the said surgery for removal of nail from the femur bone of the petitioner has been carried out as on date in the year 2021 or not. Nevertheless, considering the fact that the petitioner had undergone a surgical procedure leading to implantation of a nail in his femur bone and keeping in mind the fact that the same may subsequently be required to be removed at any time during the life time of the petitioner to prevent any complications, this Court considers it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.40,000/ as future medical expenses for undergoing surgical procedure leading to removal of the rod inserted inside his tibia. 16.2 In terms of Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High in case of Arvind Pathak vs Parshant Kumar, MAC.APP 107/2007, date of decision 21.04.2016 , having regard to the fact that the compensation under the head of loss of future expenses is being given in advance, there Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 24 of 34
shall be no interest levied on that part of the award for the period the claim petition remained pending before the Tribunal. Thus, in calculating the total compensation, the period of 23.01.2017 to 28.10.2020 shall be excluded for computing the effect of interest against the said head of compensation.
17. Pain and Suffering 17.1 As already discussed above, the MLC of the petitioner Ex. PW1/3 shows that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries. Besides, the discharge summary of the petitioner of Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini prima facie establishes that the petitioner had undergone a surgery whereby femoral interlock procedure had been done in his right thigh for management of fracture of shaft of femur bone of his right leg.
17.2 Also, as per the record the petitioner was examined regarding the nature and extent of permanent disability suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in the case accident at Dr. BSA Hospital, Sector6, Rohini, Delhi wherein Dr. Gurvinder Singh, Assistant Professor in Department of Orthopedic had given a finding to the effect that the petitioner had sustained 10% permanent disability in his right lower limb due to the injuries sustained in the case accident. 17.3 In view of my foregoing discussion regarding the grievous nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, his permanent disability and by taking the probable period of treatment to be 6 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/ is granted under the said head.
18. Loss of Income 18.1 As discussed above, the monthly income of petitioner has been taken as Rs. 9,282/ p.m at the time of accident. On the basis of evidence available on record, the probable period of treatment of petitioner has been calculated as about 6 months. Therefore, loss of income of Rs. 55,692/ (Rs. 9,282/x 6 Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 25 of 34
months) is granted as compensation towards loss of income to the petitioner for 6 months.
19. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs.5,22,365.95/ which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/ 2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 40,000/
3. Attendant Charges Rs 10,000/
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,46,329/
5. Loss of income Rs. 55,592/
6. Compensation due to permanent Rs. 1,40,344/ disability/loss of earning capacity
7. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/
8. Future medical expenses Rs.40,000/ Total Rs. 5,22,265/ Rounded of to Rs.5,22,270/ (Rupees Five Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy only) 19.1 In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) had observed that the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present matter is pending trial since 15.10.2012, and the rate of interest on fixed deposits in nationalised banks has fluctuated/dropped several times during pendency of the present proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case, this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest at the prevailing bank rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, with effect from15.10.2012 till realisation of the compensation amount. 19.2 The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 26 of 34
from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
20. Liability 20.1 In the case in hand, the National Insurance Company Ltd./R2 has not been able to show anything on record that R1 who was the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. As per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R2, hence R2 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law. Accordingly, R2 is directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,22,370/ to the petitioner. In terms of Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High in case of Arvind Pathak vs Parshant Kumar, MAC.APP 107/2007, the petitioner shall not be entitled to interest on future medical expenses to the tune of Rs.40,000/ out of the total award amount with effect from filing of DAR till the date of disposal. 20.2. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., R2/National Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R2 to the petitioner and his advocate and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R2 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 27 of 34
name till the claimant approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
21. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 23.09.2021 regarding his savings bank a/c with endorsement of MACT claims SB A/c, no loan, cheque book & ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to his ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: 21.1 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of the petitioner/injured and clause 32 of MCTAP regarding protection of the award amount, it is hereby directed that on realization, an amount of Rs.50,000/ be released to him in his MACT Claims SB A/c no. 40454804359 maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as per rules, that is, the branch near his place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD) so that the maximum benefits can be availed by the petitioner. In case, the MACAD scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be kept in 60 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 60 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 28 of 34
21.2 The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant (s) through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003. However, till the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue inconvenience, the fixed deposits shall be subject to following conditions:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The 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 claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to 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 Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 29 of 34account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) 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.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
22. Relief 22.1 As discussed above, R2 National Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 5,22,370/ with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, with effect from 15.10.2012 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R2 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which R2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days. In terms of Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High in case of Arvind Pathak vs Parshant Kumar, MAC.APP 107/2007, the petitioner shall not be entitled to interest on future medical expenses to the tune of Rs.40,000/ with effect from filing of DAR till the date of disposal. 22.2 R2 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today. 22.3 Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time. Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 30 of 34In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (02222741336/9414048606) {other detailsPersonal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
22.4 A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioner was also recorded on 23.09.2021. The record would show that the relevant documents including copy of aadhar card, PAN card, copy of bank pass book and form 15G of the petitioner have already been supplied to the ld counsel for insurance co. on 23.09.2021 itself.
23. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 31 of 34compliance as per rules.
Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR)
On 24th December, 2021 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 32 of 34
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 11.07.2012
2. Name of injured: Naveen Kumar
3. Age of the injured: 23 years 08 and 27 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: Guest Teacher
5. Income of the injured. 9,282/
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured. For about 6 months
8. Period of hospitalization: 08 days
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details.
10% permanent disability
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 1,46,329/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 20,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 20,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 10,000/
(v) Compensation due to permanent Rs. 1,40,344/ disability/loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 55,592/
(vii) Future Medical Expenses 40,000/
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 33 of 34
(I) Compensation for mental and physical N/A
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/
(iv) Disfiguration N/A
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
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 10% permanent disability nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity 5% in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X Rs. 1,40,343.84 (after %Earning capacity X Multiplier) rounding of Rs.1,40,344/) [(Rs.12,994.80/per month x12 months x 18 (age multiplier) x 5/100(functional disability)].
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 5,22,270/ (after rounding of) (In terms of Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High in case of Arvind Pathak vs Parshant Kumar, MAC.APP 107/2007, the petitioner shall not be entitled to interest on future medical expenses to the tune of Rs.40,000/ out of Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. Page 34 of 34
the total award amount with effect from filing of DAR till the date of disposal.)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 6%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 2,88,029/ award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 8,10,299/
18. Award amount released Rs. 50,000/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 7,60,299/
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) clause 29 of MCTAP
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 24.01.2022 (Clause 31) (JASJEET KAUR) PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
24.12.2021 Naveen Kumar vs. Prem Kumar & Anr.