Delhi District Court
Mact No.420/06 Raj Laxmi vs Hem Parkash Etc. on 14 May, 2012
1
MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
IN THE COURT OF SH. B. S. CHUMBAK, PO MACT EAST
DISTRICT : DLEHI
Petition No. 420/06
Date of filing of the petition 07/08/06
Date of assignment to this court 20/09/2011
Date on which judgment was reserved 10/05/12
Date of award 14/05/12
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Ms. RAJ LAXMI D/O SH. MOHAN PAL
R/O C-12, VIJAY NAGAR, GHAZIABAD UP
ALSO AT : H. NO. 153, MIG FLAT, SEC. VASUNDHERA
GHAZIABAD UP. ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. MR. HEM PARKASH S/O SH. MADAN PAL KHARI
R/O H. NO. 3/42, SHASTRI PARK, DELHI.
2. M/S TERA HI TERA FOODS PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGER
10145, 3-F, LIBRARY ROAD, AZAD MARKET
DELHI-110008
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
DIVISION NO. 10, FLAT NO. 101-106
N-1 M.C. HOUSE, CANNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI-110001
AWARD
1. Ms. Raj Laxmi d/o late Sh. Mohan Pal, r/o H. No. C-12, Sec. 9 Vijay Nagar,
2
MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
Ghaziabad U.P, injured (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) filed the present
petition u/s 166 & section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as Act of 1988) against Sh. Hem Parkash s/o Sh. Madan Lal Khari
r/o 3/42, Shashtri Park Delhi, driver,(hereinafter referred to as respondent no.
1), M/s Tera Hi Tera Foods Pvt. Ltd. through its manager, 10145, 3/F, Library Road, Azad Market Delhi, owner (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.2) and National Insurance Co. Ltd., having its office at Division No. 10 Flat No. 101-106, N-1 BMC House, Connaught Place New Delhi-110001, insurer (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.3) for seeking compensation in lieu of injuries received due to said accident.
2. Petitioner was about 27 years old, was working as Computer Operator in Transport Authority Department Anand Vihar, on contract basis with Virgo Softech Ltd. and earning Rs. 3500/- per month on the day of accident.
3. The brief facts arising out of this case are that on 06/2/2006 at about 4.40 p.m the petitioner was passing through Red Light crossing Anand Vihar ISBT Maharaj Pur Road No. 56, Delhi, in the mean a Maruti van white colour bearing registration No. DL-1N-E-6570 reached there which was being driven by R1 in 3 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
a rash and negligent manner, crossed the red light without green signal and hit with the petitioner with a great force. Due to that petitioner fell down on the road and sustained injuries/ fractures on her right leg due to that she became permanent disabled and also became unable to walk without stick.
4. Petitioner was taken to SDN hospital and from there to Yashoda Hospital Ghaizabad U.P. It is further averred that a case u/sec. 279/337 IPC was also registered at P.S Anand Vihar vide FIR No. 68/06. Petitioner also incurred expenses to receive treatment, better diet, conveyance and attendant during the course of receiving treatment and claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest towards all the heads. It is further averred that R1 is the driver, R2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and R3 is the insurer, therefore they all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and R3 is liable to indemnify R1 and R2.
5. Notice of the petition was served upon all the respondents. R1 and R2 filed their written statement and controverted all the allegations as alleged in the petition and also took many preliminary objections such as the petition is not maintainable and is gross abuse and misuse of process of the court. Petitioner 4 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
has also not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. Without prejudice to the right and contention of both the respondents it is further averred that the amount claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive,exorbitant and is not based on any formula. R1 was also having a valid D/L and his vehicle was duly insured with R3 as such answering respondent is not liable to make the payment of any compensation and requested for dismissal of the petition.
6. R-3 also controverted all the allegations as alleged by the petitioner and took many preliminary objection such as petition is not maintainable as no cause of action has been accrued to the petitioner to file the present petition. The Petitioner has not come before this court with clean hands and the petition is filed with the malafide intention to get the compensation from this court. The R1 was not possessing the valid D/L to drive the commercial vehicle and thereby clause 3(b) of the policy is violated. It is further averred that without admitting the factum of accident and its liability if any, and on considering the averment that accident caused due to negligence of the petitioner who was crossing the red light despite of the fact that she was handicapped and was unable to move properly, in such circumstances the instances of contributory 5 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
negligence on the part of petitioner cannot be ruled out.
7. It is further pleaded that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as claimed in the petition is highly exaggerated and is not compatible with the instance. It is further pleaded that the liability of answering respondent if any, is only the liability which arising out of any contract based on certain terms and conditions to be satisfied by the insured, therefore, unless and until it is proved that R-1 was driving the vehicle with valid effective D/L the answering respondent shall not be made liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. However, in reply to para 17 of the petition it is admitted that vehicle bearing No. DL-1L-E-6570 was insured with R3 in the name of M/s Tera Hi Tera Food Pvt. Ltd., vide policy No. 9253586 and was valid from 16/8/2005 to 15/8/2006 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and of the provisions of M.V Act. In view of the aforesaid contention requested for dismissal of the petition.
8. After hearing arguments and on the basis of pleadings from both the parties following issues were framed on 11/5/2010 :
i) Whether the Raj Laxmi received injuries due 6 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van No. DL-
1LE-6570 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by R1?
ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to get any compensation if so, from whom and of what amount ?
iv) Relief.
9. After framing of issues case was fixed for petitioner's evidence.
10.Petitioner appeared as PW1 and filed her affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW.1/X bearing her signature at point A and B. In her affidavit she stated all the facts which were stated by her in her petition and also relied upon the documents which are Ex.PW 1/A to Ex.PW 1/D. Ex.PW 1/A is the pay slip mentioning therein that the petitioner was working as a computer operator in the office of Transport Authority Anand Vihar under the contract of m/s Virgo Softech Ltd. and getting a monthly salary of Rs.3500/- Ex.PW 1/B is the copy of FIR, bearing No. 68/06 registered at P.S Anand Vihar u/sec. 279/337 IPC, Ex.PW 1/C is the copy of MLC No. 409/06 wherein it is mentioned that after the accident she was taken to SDN hospital by her colleagues. She received treatment in the said hospital and a plaster was also applied on her right leg and many stitches were also given on her head , Ex.PW 1/D is the discharge 7 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
summary issued by Yashoda Hospital Ghaziabad where her right leg was operated and plate was inserted on 8.2.2006 and she also admitted there till 11.2.2006 for about for days.
11.During her cross examination she admitted that she had not filed any appointment letter in the court. She availed three months leave after the said accident I.e w.e.f 6/2/2006 to 30.4.2006. She also admitted that she was having 40% permanent disability prior to the said accident. She also admitted that she had received the treatment through CGHS Scheme as her father was Govt. official but her employer had not given her three months salary. Rest of her testimony is reiterated as submitted by her in her examination in chief.
12.Dr. Atul Mishra appeared as PW . 2 and deposed that he had seen specialist OPD Card regarding patient Raj Laxmi, who was examined by him on 30/4/2009 at Deepak Memorial hospital and he had examined her as a follow up case of surgery which he had done. He specifically stated that patient was referred from Yashoda Hospital Ghaziabad with the complaint of non union of the fracture of Tibia Fibula of right leg with infection. He did surgical operation known as Ilizarov fixator I.e a specialized implant which is put in the leg which 8 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
would have helped in healing the fracture. He also did another surgery on 15/5/09 thereby he removed the external fixator because clinically and radiologically her fracture had united. Documents to this effect are collectively as Ex.PW2/1. He had also seen three sheets dt. 30/4/09, 28/5/09 and 28/5/09 which are collectively as Ex.PW2/2, discharge summary is Ex.PW2/3 which was prepared by RMO and counter signed by him. He further deposed that the patient still had signs of infection in the bone for which she is being treated by him on OPD basis.
13.He was recalled for the purpose of cross-examination and deposed that as per discharge card Ex.PW2/4 of patient Raj Laxmi, she was admitted with complaint of pain in right leg, puss discharged with pathological fracture. Clinical diagnoses was " infected non union of right Tibia and fibula". Thereafter, petitioner's evidence was closed and case was fixed for respondent's evidence.
14.Dr. Shaymali Kundu CMO SDN Hospital appeared as R2W1 and produced the MLC of patent Raj Laxmi d/o Mohan Lal, age 28 years. She was brought to the hospital with alleged history of road traffic accident. The result of nature of 9 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
injury was opined as simple. He also admitted that when she was brought to hospital she was having polio effected right limb. He further deposed that he referred the patient to orthopedic surgeon. He further deposed that Orthopedic surgeon examined the patient and confirmed that right limb was having deformity of polio and rest of the findings were as per examination of patient by the CMO. He further deposed that the also found an old fracture of Saft of Tibia and the bones were very week and osteo- porotic (the bones were very brittle). He specifically deposed that injury suffered by the patient in the said accident were very simple in nature.
15.During his cross-examination he deposed that he cannot rule out the suffering of fracture by a polio affective patient and he also failed to explain whether patient in this case was in a position to cross the road without any help or assistance even when she is suffering from any old fracture.
16.Dr. Atul Mishra appeared as PW .2 has been again recalled for the purpose of his re-cross-examination wherein he reiterated his testimony as submitted by him as PW .2.
17.Sh. Dinesh Kumar LDC from Transport Authority appeared as R3W1 and 10 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
produced the verification report of D/L of Hem Parkash s/o Madan Pal. Said D/L was issued from their office I.e Loni Road North East Zone. He further deposed that by virtue of said D/L he can drive only LMV (NT) and motor cycle and the D/L holder was not permitted to drive the commercial vehicle. Report in this regard is Ex.R3W1/A. During his cross-examination he specifically deposed that in the report Ex.R3W1/A it is not mentioned that R1 is not permitted to drive the commercial vehicle by virtue of the D/L placed on record. Again said the word NT denotes that he was not authorized to drive the commercial vehicle.
18.Sh. Ramesh Kumar AO National Insurance Co. appeared as R3W2 and produced the certified copy of the insurance policy issued in the name TERA HI TERA FOODS PVT. LTD., which was valid for the period from 16/8/05 to 15/8/06, same is Ex.R3W1/1 Thereafter RE was closed and case was fixed for final arguments.
19. After hearing arguments and taking into consideration the evidence adduced by both the parties my findings on the issues are as follows :
ISSUE -1 11 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
i) Whether the Raj Laxmi received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van No. DL- 1LE-6570 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by R1?
20.On this issue, the evidence of injured PW1 is very much relevant. In her affidavits she specifically stated that on 06/2/2006 at about 4.40 p.m she was passing through Red Light crossing Anand Vihar ISBT Maharaj Pur Roa No. 56, Delhi, in the meantime a Maruti van white colour bearing registration No. DL-1N-E-6570 reached there which was being driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner, crossed the red light without seeing signal and hit with the her with a great force. Due to that she fell down on the road and sustained injuries/ fractures on her right leg due to that she became permanently disabled and also became unable to walk without stick. A criminal case u/s 279/337 IPC was registered vide FIR no. 68/06 at PS Anand Vihar.
21.Her testimony is further corroborated by filing the true copy of the criminal case record whereby it is corroborated that on 06/02/2006 a criminal case was also registered u/s 279/337 IPC vide FIR no. 68/06 at PS Anand Vihar on the 12 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
basis of statement of PW.1. Site plan showing the place of accident was prepared by IO and driving license, RC and insurance policy were taken in possession by the IO.
22.In view of the aforesaid evidence adduced by the petitioner and investigation conducted by the police official and also in the absence of any evidence contrary to the petitioner evidence I am of the considered view that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of petitioner and PW.1 on this issue and accordingly, petitioner succeeded in proving that on 06/02/2006 an accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by R-1.
23.Accordingly, I decide both the issues in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to get any
compensation if so, from whom and of what amount ?
24.On this issue ld. counsel on behalf of insurance company has submitted that the 13 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
petitioner was permanent disabled prior to said accident. She was taken to SDN hospital and nature of injuries were opined as simple and in view of the nature of injuries the possibility of enhancement of permanent disability is totally ruled out. It is further submitted that on perusal of the medical treatment record it appears that the operation was conducted on 20/5/08 at Deepak Memorial Hospital & Research Center and she was again operated on 15/5/09 again at Deepak Memorial Hospital I.e after about the lapse of two years of the date of accident and keeping inview the opinion given by doctor of SDN hospital the petitioner is only entitled to claim compensation on account of simple injuries and not on the basis of permanent disability.
25.On the contrary ld. counsel on behalf of petitioner submitted that immediate after the discharge from the SDN hospital petitioner was taken to Yashoda Hospital on 7/2/06 and she remained admitted there till 11/2/06 and on the discharged summary prepared by concerned doctor of Yashoda Hospital it is opined that the petitioner was brought with alleged history of RTA on 5/2/2006 with K/C of Polio myelitis right leg with fracture right Tibia with PPRP which clearly suggest that she received fracture due to accidental injury on 6/2/2006. It is further submitted that after receiving the grievous injuries on her right tibia 14 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
the infection developed and thereafter during the continuation of treatment, she was operated on 20/5/08 and remained admitted till 26/5/08 at Deepak Memorial Hospital and was again admitted on 15/5/2009 for the purpose of fixator removal. The discharge summary dt. 15/5/09 and 26/5/08 are Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/4 and requested for seeking compensation on the basis of permanent disability which has been resulted after receiving the accidental injury on 06/2/2006.
26. In view of the rival contention and on considering the formula as regard the quantum of compensation I am of the view that the petitioner has to be compensated for the actual expenses incurred by her and for the loss of income of her being rendered permanently disabled. Besides non-pecuniary losses are to be assessed on the basis of facts proved.
27.As regards the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner no medical bills has been brought on record, however, it is admitted that all the medical bills were got reimbursed by her father from his office, therefore, no amount has been granted towards this head.
28.On perusal of discharge summary and medical record of the injured/petitioner 15 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
and also keeping in view the nature of injuries on the basis of which a disability certificate is brought on record, it is established that the injury received by the petitioner in the said accident resulted into permanent disability of 51% including 40% disability before the accident, in relation to his right lower limb.
29.Petitioner claimed her age as 28 years on the date, time and place of accident. Cogent evidence with regard to monthly income and employment with Transport Authority Department Anand Vihar under contract basis with Virgo Softech. Ltd. is placed on record. On perusal of the pay slip Ex.PW.1/A it is established that in the month of Nov. 2006 she was earning Rs. 3500/- p.m. Considering her age I.e 28 years and following the observations given by their Lordships in a decided case cited as Satnosh Devi Vs. National Insurnace Company Ltd. & Ors. Wherein it is observed as under :
"We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in para no. 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case that where the deceased was self employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment etc. the court will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in 16 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.
In our view, it will be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold.
Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the 17 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching clothes. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather , it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation."
The petitioner has also become entitled for 50% further increase in her salary on the day of accident and thereby her monthly income is to be considered for the purpose of computation of loss of future compensation as Rs.5250/- p.m
30.For assessing the future compensation in the present case reference is being had 18 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
to the provisions of Second Schedule Clause (5) of the Motor Vehicle Act which provided as under:-
Clause 5:- Disability in non-fatal accidents:-
The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of non-fatal accidents. Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty two weeks.
Plus either of the following:-
(a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the Multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation, or
(b) In case of permanent disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under item (a) above.
Injuries deemed to result in Permanent Total Disablement/ Permanent Partial Disablement and percentage of loss of earing capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workman's Compensation Act, 1923.
31.I also placed my reliance on a decided case cited as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298".
32.Following the formula laid down in clause (5) and the observations given by their lordships in the aforesaid decided case and also taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the petitioner, I am of the view that petitioner has 19 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
proved the particulars of her employment and her monthly salary. On considering the age of the petitioner as 28 years, and on following the observations given by their Lordships in Satnosh Devi Vs. National Insurnace Company Ltd. & Ors case (Supra), the petitioner has also become entitled for 50% future increase in her salary which comes to Rs.5250/- per month.
33.The injuries sustained by her resulted into 11% enhanced permanent disability in relation to her right lower limb. Admittedly she was already suffering 40% permanent disability due to Polio myelitis, therefore, the enhanced permanent disability can be taken as 11% permanent disability towards whole body. On considering the age of the petitioner as 28 years for assessing the future loss the multiplier of 17 is to be applied and accordingly the loss of future income of the petitioner is to be assessed to the tune of Rs.5250x17x12x11/100 =Rs.1,17,810/-.
34.On considering the nature of injuries received in the said accident, at the time of visiting the various hospitals, the possibility of having a attendant with the petitioner cannot be ruled out and accordingly, I assess Rs. 20,000/- for the said 20 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
purpose.
35.However, the pain and suffering of the petitioner in the present case cannot be measured in terms of money as the suffering is going to be with him for his whole life and it is only for the purpose of this claim that a sum of Rs. 35,000/- on the minimum is being assessed.
36.Petitioner also incurred expenses towards conveyance and better diet which I assess to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- towards both the heads. However, the salary for the leave period availed by the petitioner during receiving treatment has already been paid by his employer. In such circumstances petitioner is not entitled to be compensated for the leave availed by her during receiving treatment.
37.On the point of deciding liability by whom the amount of compensation is payable, Ld. counsel on behalf of petitioner submitted that the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with R-3, R-2 was the registered owner and R1/driver was having valid D/L to drive the offending vehicle and no evidence contrary to the evidence brought on record by Insurance company in their defence. In 21 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
such circumstances the insurance company has become entitled to indemnify R1 and R2.
38.On the contrary ld. counsel for insurance company submitted that the driving licence produced by R1 is found fake during enquiry conducted by the IO/ representative of insurance company and In such circumstances, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify R1 and R2 and requested for wholly exoneration for any sort of liability to pay the compensation and reliance is also placed on a decided case cited as National Insurance Co. LTD. Vs. Tulna Devi and Others, 2009 ACJ 58, wherein it is observed as under:
" The breach of policy conditions, e.g., disqualification of driver of invalid driving license of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of section 149,has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy 22 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time."
and also placed her reliance on a decided case cited as National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh and ors. [2004, 3 SCC 297], wherein it is observed that :-
" We have analysed the relevant provisions of the said Act in terms whereof a motor vehicle must be driven by a person having a driving license. The owner of a motor vehicle in terms of Section 5 of the Act has a responsibility to see that no vehicle is driven except by a person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act. In a case, therefore, where the driver of the vehicle,admittedly did not hold any licence and the same was allowed consciously to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the insurer is entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid liability. The matter, however, may be different where a owner of the vehicle committed a breach of the terms of the contract of insurance as also the provisions of the Act by consciously allowing any person to drive a vehicle who did not have a valid driving licence. In a given case, the driver of the vehicle may not have any hand in it at all."
39.After hearing arguments and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and the observations given by their lordship in the 23 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
aforesaid decided cases I am of the considered view that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and in such circumstances Insurance Company is only entitled to have the recovery right against R-1, R-2 driver and owner of the offending vehicle, but cannot be wholly exonerated to make the payment of compensation to the petitioner. This issue is decided accordingly.
40.After hearing arguments on behalf of Ld. counsel for both the parties, I carefully perused the evidence adduced by the petitioner and the observation given by their lordships in the aforesaid case, the petitioner is become entitled for the total amount of compensation towards all the heads as follows:-
Sl.No. On Account of Amount (Rs.)
1 Towards loss of future income Rs. 1,17,810/-
2 Towards attendant Rs. 20,000/-
4 Towards conveyance and better diet Rs. 30,000/-
Towards pain and suffering Rs.35,000/-
5
Total Rs.2,02,810/-
24
MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
41. I accordingly, grant a compensation to the tune of Rs.2,02,810/- to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its realization minus the amount of interim compensation, if any and interest excepted if any. The insurance company/R3 is hereby directed to deposit the award amount with upto date interest in Oriental Bank of Commerce branch, F21, Preet Vihar Main Vikas Marg Delhi-1 branch in the name of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of award under the intimation to this court and bank would keep this amount in an account in the name of Judge MACT East and would wait for the further directions as to the disbursement of the same till the compliance is reported.
42.No order as to costs. An attested copy of this award alongwith two recent photographs of the petitioners with court stamp be also sent to the bank for facilitating the compliance. Put up for compliance on 06/07/2012 Announced in the open court (B.S. CHUMBAK) on 14/5/2011 PO MACT/EAST DISTT.
KKD:DELHI 25 MACT NO.420/06 RAJ LAXMI VS HEM PARKASH ETC.
14.05.2012
Present: None.
Final arguments already heard.
Final award to the tune of Rs. 2,02,810/- to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its realization minus the amount of interim compensation, if any and interest excepted if any. The insurance company/R3 is hereby directed to deposit the award amount with upto date interest in Oriental Bank of Commerce branch, F21, Preet Vihar Main Vikas Marg Delhi-1 branch in the name of the petitioners within 30 days from the date of award under the intimation to this court and bank would keep this amount in an account in the name of Judge MACT East and would wait for the further directions as to the disbursement of the same till the compliance is reported.
No order as to costs. An attested copy of this award alongwith two recent photographs of the petitioners with court stamp be also sent to the bank for facilitating the compliance. Put up for compliance on 06/07/2012.
(B.S. CHUMBAK) PO MACT EAST DISTRICT KKD DELHI 14/05/2011