Delhi District Court
Prabhat( I) (547/21 Wazirabad) vs Pranjul Kumar (National Ins Co.) on 28 November, 2024
DLCT010150402021
Presented on : 08-11-2021
Registered on : 12-11-2021
Decided on : 28-11-2024
Duration : 03 Years
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 806/21
(For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries
sustained by the injured) :
PRABHAT KUMAR
S/o Sh. Sushil Kumar
R/o H.No. 115, C2C Block,
Pkt-2, Janak Puri, Delhi-110058. .....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. PRANJUL KUMAR
S/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar
R/o Vill Fajalpur, PS Minauli,
Distt. Bagpat, U.P. (Driver).
2. RAHUL KUMAR
S/o Sh. Bhanwar Singh
R/o Vill Fajalpur, PS Minauli,
Distt. Bagpat, U.P.(Owner).
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Ankur Jaitely)(Insurer)
........Respondents.
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 1/32 Digitally signed byPANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.28 12:56:39 +0530
1. Date of the accident 19.07.2021
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Report N.A. (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident 12.11.2021 Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not mentioned by the Insurance Company MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 2/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 12:56:59 +0530
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance N.A. Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 28.11.2024
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were NA directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 3/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.28 12:57:04 +0530 effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the NA passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) NA is near their place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at NA the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
AWARD/ JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 4/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 12:57:09 +0530
1. This DAR was filed on 12/11/2021 by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the parties. The DAR is related to a motor vehicular accident dated 19/07/2021 in which one Sh.
Prabhat Kumar S/o Sh. Sushil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") sustained grievous injuries. Perusal of records reveal that initially five separate DARs were filed on 12/11/2021 by the Investigating Officer in respect of injuries by the five injured persons. The first DAR was in respect of injuries sustained by one Sh. Aminde S/o Sh. Sushil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'injured'), second in respect of injuries sustained by Sh. Garvit ( whose name has inadvertently been mentioned as Gurpreet in the DAR) S/o Sh. Aminder (hereinafter referred to as 'injured'), third in respect of injuries sustained by Ms. Kavita W/o Sh. Sonu (hereinafter referred to as 'injured'), fourth in respect of injuries sustained by Smt. Anita Kumari W/o Sh. Aminder (hereinafter referred t as 'injured') and fifth in respect of injuries sustained by Sh. Prabhat Kumar S/o Sh. Sushil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "injured"). All the aforesaid five matters were consolidated vide order dated 12.09.2022 and the matter for grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained y injured Sh. Aminder in the case bearing MACT No. 807/21 was treated as a 'Lead case''. Accordingly, evidence was recorded in the lead case. Out of these five matters, the matters bearing MACT No. 807/21, 805/21, 808/21 & 809/21 were disposed vide judgment MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 5/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 12:57:15 +0530 dated 06/11/2023 by this Tribunal. However, today instant DAR bearing MACT No. 806/21 in respect of injured Sh. Prabhat Kumar S/o Sh. Sushil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") is being disposed. As per records, these DARs were prepared by IO in respect of a motor vehicular accident which occurred 19.07.2021 at about 05.45 A.M. at a spot near Gandhi Vihar Red Light. As per DARs, at the relevant time the the injured persons were going towards Baraut, UP from Pipal Chowk Kakaraula Village, Delhi in a EECO Van bearing registration No. DL-9CAV-4445 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') which being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at very high speed. It is further stated that the injured persons advised to driver of the above said vehicle to driver the said vehicle at normal speed and with due precaution but he did not care the advice of injured persons. It is further stated that at that time the driver of the above said vehicle said that he had to take CNG and took U-Turn in the wrong direction and injured persons asked him to take U-Turn from proper turn of the road but despite of their warning he took wrong U-Turn of abovesaid vehicle and at the same time a Truck container which was coming from Majnu Ka Teela side and running in his proper side and in order to save the EECO Van/ offending vehicle, the driver of the above said Truck/ Container applied brake and turned his Truck towards right side and MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 6/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 12:57:23 +0530 overturned on EECO Van/ offending vehicle partially. As a result of which all the occupants of EECO Van received injuries. 1.1. As per injured Prabhat Kumar he has suffered blunt trauma abdomen with jejunal perforation peritonitis and lateral third of right clavicle fracture and has undergone two times operations for the same. It is further stated that he has spent Rs.94,980/- on his medical treatment, Rs. 50,000/- on conveyance, Rs. 70,000/- on special diet and Rs.50,000/- on attendant. He seeks compensation to the tune of Rs.10 Lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by him the vehicular accident. It is further stated that at the time of accident he was 24 years of age and was doing a job of Field Executive and was earning Rs.
21,000/- per month. He further stated that he suffered 06% permanent physical disability with respect to his right upper limb and he has became unemployable permanently. An FIR No. 547/2021 PS Wazirabad was registered U/s 279/337/338 IPC. R-1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. R-3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. All the DARs were treated as 'claim petitions'. This Tribunal directed R-3/insurance company to file a legal offer/reasoned decision in response to the said DARs. R-1 and R-2 were also directed to file their Written Statements in all the cases.
2. No written statement was filed by R-1 and R-2 and their right to file WS was closed vide order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 7/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.28 12:57:28 +0530
3. R-3/Insurance Company filed a written statement in which it has denied the contents of DAR in toto. It is averred that the offending vehicle was insured under the category of private use vehicle whereas the said vehicle has been used for commercial passenger vehicle at the time of alleged accident. Therefore, there is contractual breach of policy and no liability be fastened upon the R-3/ Insurance Company and R-3/ Insurance Company be exonerated from the proceedings.
ISSUES NO. 14. Vide order dated 12/09/2022 the following consolidated issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the petitioners Aminder, Garvit, Prabhat, Kavita & Anita suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 19.07.2021 at about 05.57 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-9C-
AV-4445 driven the Respondent No. 1 by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with Respondent No.3?OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 8/32 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.28 12:57:34 +0530 EVIDENCE
5. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in support of his claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He deposed that he sustained grievous injuries at the relevant time. He further deposed that at the relevant time, he was 24 years of age and was doing a private job as a Filed Executive and was earning Rs.21,000/- per month and due to injuries he has not been able to do his studies till date due to the said accident and he has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 06% with respect to his right upper limb. Petitioner has relied upon the following documents viz:-
"Ex. PW-1/1 is copy of Aadhar Card of PW-1;
Ex.PW-1/2 is copy of PAN Card of PW-1; Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly) is original medical treatment records (running into 10 pages); Ex.PW-1/4 original medical bills (contained 36 pages);
Ex.PW-1/5 (OSR) is copy of marksheet of B.Com pass of PW-1;
Ex.PW-1/6 disability certificate of PW-1; Ex.PW-1/7 (Colly) is complete set of DAR; Mark A is bills summary.'' MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. PageDigitally No. 9/32signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.28 12:57:39 +0530
6. PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In his cross-examination he deposed that the accident took place on 19.07.2021 at around 05.45 in the morning. He further deposed that he has called for taxi to go from his house near peepal chowk to Baraut and the vehicle bearing registration no. DL9CAV-4445 came to pick and four more passengers were also travelling alongwith him in that taxi. He denied the suggestion that passenger vehicle bearing registration no. DL-9CAV-4445 was not negligent whereas the truck container coming from Majnua Ka Taill was negligent.
7. PE was then closed.
8. No evidence was lead in defence by either of the Respondents No. 1 & 2.
8.1 Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company examined one Sh. Surjeet Singh, Assistant Employee No. 21224, posted in Legal Department, NLU, National Insurance Company Ltd. 2E/9, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi as RW3/1 in the lead case bearing MACT No. 807/21. He proved the authority letter vide Ex. RW3/1, insurance policy vide Ex. RW3/2. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner. In his cross-examination he deposed that in Ex.RW2/2 nowhere mentioned that the company is not liable to pay the compensation. He denied the suggestion that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to third party in the present matter.
MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 10/32Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 12:59:59 +0530 FINDINGS
9. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties.
10. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1Whether the petitioners Aminder, Garvit, Prabhat, Kavita & Anita suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 19.07.2021 at about 05.57 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-9C- AV-4445 driven the Respondent No. 1 by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with Respondent No.3?OPP.
11. At the very outset, it may be noted 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 by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts, as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No.signed Digitally by PANKAJ 11/32 PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 13:00:02 +0530 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096(Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
12. As already discussed above, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in order to prove the factual averments regarding the occurrence of accident. PW-1 has clearly and categorically stated that at the relevant date, time and place, he was going towards Baraut UP from Peepal Chowk Kakaraula Village Delhi by a ECCO Van bearing registration number DL-9CAV-4445 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") as a a a passenger and the driver of the said vehicle was driving the said with rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed and when the said vehicle reached at Gandhi Vihar Red Light at 5.45 AM, the accident took place when the driver of the offending vehicle wrongly turn his vehicle to the other road for filing the CNG Gas due to this one Truck container bearing registration no. HR-63C-8453 coming from other side Wazirabad to Mukarba Chowk toppled on the ECCO Van and he and all other co-passengers of the offending vehicle sustained injury due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Ecco MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 12/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.28 13:00:05 +0530 Van and driver of the offending vehicle ran away from the spot. It is further stated that he has suffered blunt trauma abdomen with jejunal perforation peritonitis and lateral third of right clavicle fracture and has undergone two times operations for the same. It is further stated that he has spent Rs.94,980/- on his medical treatment, Rs. 50,000/- on conveyance, Rs. 70,000/- on special diet and Rs.50,000/- on attendant. He seeks compensation to the tune of Rs.10 Lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by him the vehicular accident. It is further stated that at the time of accident he was 24 years of age and was doing a job of Field Executive and was earning Rs. 21,000/- per month. He further deposed that he suffered 06% permanent physical disability with respect to his right upper limb and he has became unemployable permanently. Petitioner claims compensation on account of special pecuniary damage relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicine, transportation, diet, loss of earning during the period, he was injured, loss of earning during the period of treatment, loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, non-pecuniary damages, damages for pain suffering and trauma, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. PW-1 was subjected to a brief cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. However, he remained consistent and seems to have withstood the test of cross- examination. He has declined all the suggestions of R-3/ Insurance Company imputing the occurrence of accident to his MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 13/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 13:00:08 +0530 own negligence. There is nothing on record which betrays any falsity or untruth in the oral testimony of PW-1. As such, it could be safely held that the oral testimony of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy.
13. The very fact that R-1 has already been charge-
sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 & 184 MV Act IPC in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of injured persons and the case of petitioners on these issues. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet, Site plan, Mechanical inspection reports of offending vehicle, MLC, medical records of injured persons, Seizure Memos and Arrest Memo of R-1 also corroborate the oral testimony of injured persons.
14. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the deposition being made by injured regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
15. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was being driven by R-1 rashly and negligently in which injured persons were travelling at the relevant time.
MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 14/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 13:00:11 +0530
16. This Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle (i.e. the offending vehicle) why he was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently in which the injured persons were travelling at the relevant time. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the injured persons, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
17. In view of the medical records placed on the judicial files by the respective petitioner/s, no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the injured person in the above accident.
18. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the injured suffered injuries on their person on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In all these issues are thus decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner/s in all the above four cases.
MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 15/32 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.28 13:00:14 +0530 ISSUE NO. 2
19. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the injuries sustained by the injured person, therefore, the petitioners in all the cases are entitled to be compensated justly. Computation of the compensation shall be decided separately for both the sets of petitioners as well as injured in the following paragraphs :-
COMPENSATION
20. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The pecuniary damages or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The non-pecuniary or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non-
MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 16/32 Digitally signedby PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 13:00:17 +0530 pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC
343.
MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. Digitally signed17/32 by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 13:00:20 +0530
21. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which could be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
22. The Injured Prabhat Kumar has placed on judicial file the original medical treatment records Ex.PW1/3 (Colly) as well as original medical bills as Ex. PW1/4(colly).As per the said documents, Injured has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 94,980/-.In the absence of any contest to the said documents placed on record by the Injured. Injured is held entitled to an amount of Rs.94,980/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
23. As per medical documents, the injured has suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 06% permanent disability. As per discharge summary issued by Surgical Gastroenterology & Liver Transportation, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi Ex. PW1/3 (Colly), he was admitted on 21/07/2021 and was discharged on 20/08/2021 and he was diagnosed with 'Blunt trauma abdomen with jejunal perforation peritonitis Lateral third of clavicle fracture and he was operated upon (i) exploratory laparatomy + resection of segment of Jejunum with perforation + side to side hand sewn anastamosis + Lavage done on 21/07/2021 and (ii) Close MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 18/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 13:00:23 +0530 reduction internal fixation with k-wires fixation for lateral end of clavicle right doen on 26/07/2021 under GA by orthopaedic team. As per disability certificate no. 1895 dated 13/12/2023 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Delhi, petitioner is a case of '' FUC of # Clavicle ( Rt)' and was found to have sustained 06% permanent physical impairment with respect to his right upper limb which is not likely to improve. The aforementioned certificate was issued in terms of the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated 07/10/2023. Accordingly, the aforementioned disability certificate could be read in evidence in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Union of India in Writ Petition (s) (Civil ) No (s). 534/2020 date of order 16/11/2021. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, 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 petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.50,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 50,000/- under this head.MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 19/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.11.28 13:00:26 +0530
(iii) Loss of income
24. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims that he was 24 years of age and was doing a private job as Field Executive and was earning Rs.21,000/- per month. The medical records placed on record by petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained a grievous injuries which resulted into 06% permanent physical disability with to right upper limb. The above documents are sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to the effect that he was unable to resume his vocation since the date of accident. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner has become unfit for work for rest of his life after the accident and he could not have worked for about 06 months due to the injuries. In the absence of any material as to the monthly earnings of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to assume the monthly earnings of the petitioner as per the Minimum Wages payable to a Graduate Person in Delhi as on the date of accident. Accordingly, the Minimum Wages admissible to Graduate Person ( the copy of B.Com final Marksheet is Ex. PW1/5) as on 19/07/2021 in Delhi the earnings was Rs.20,976/-. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,25,856/- (Rs.20,976/- X 6). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 20/32 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.28 13:00:29 +0530
25. Petitioner claimed in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he has become permanently disabled after the accident and could not perform his work by resuming his duties. As per discharge summary issued by Surgical Gastroenterology & Liver Transportation, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi Ex. PW1/3 (Colly), he was admitted on 21/07/2021 and was discharged on 20/08/2021 and he was diagnosed with 'Blunt trauma abdomen with jejunal perforation peritonitis Lateral third of clavicle fracture and he was operated upon (i) exploratory laparatomy + resection of segment of Jejunum with perforation + side to side hand sewn anastamosis + Lavage done on 21/07/2021 and (ii) Close reduction internal fixation with k-wires fixation for lateral end of clavicle right doen on 26/07/2021 under GA by orthopaedic team. As per disability certificate no. 1895 dated 13/12/2023 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Delhi, petitioner is a case of '' FUC of # Clavicle ( Rt)' and was found to have sustained 06% permanent physical impairment with respect to his right upper limb which is not likely to improve. As per the facts, thepetitioner has received 06% permanent physical impairment with respect to right upper limb. Also he suffered injury on vital part of his body. The said disability and injury would certainly impeded the functional disability of the petitioner to a greater extent in future. There is no standard mechanism to assess the likely damage to the body by such injuries. However, MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 21/32 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.28 13:00:32 +0530 in the circumstances, it would be appropriate to consider the functional disability of petitioner as 06%. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs.20,976/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, we may look into the photocopy of petitioner's Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW1/1, as per the said document, the date of birth of petitioner was 20/07/1997. The date of accident is 19/07/2021. Going by the same, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident was around 24 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability. Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to his above injury and permanent locomotor disability comes to Rs.3,80,589/- (rounded off) (Rs.20,976/- X 140/100 X 6/100 X 12 X 18 ) and the same is awarded to him as compensation under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 22/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2024.11.28 13:00:35 +0530
26. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each under these heads.
(vi) Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement
27. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each under these heads.
Issue No.3/Relief
28. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs.9,01,425/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs One Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Five Only) (Rs.94,980/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.1,25,856/- + Rs.3,80,589/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs.50,000/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of restoration of the DAR i.e. 12/11/2021. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
29. Petitioner did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording his statement regarding financial needs and requirements.
MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 23/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.11.28 13:00:38 +0530 29.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 32 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 32 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when she furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the place of his residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.3,17,767/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Seven Only) is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner.
30. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 24/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.11.28 13:00:41 +0530 amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
31. On the point of liability, Ld.Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company seeks exoneration on the ground that the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-9C-AV-4445 was registered under the private category of private use vehicle whereas same is used for the purpose of commercial passenger vehicle.
However, there is no evidence on record which can corroborate the said fact. The testimony of Sh. Surjeet Singh (RW3) is not sufficient to substantiate the same. Also, there is no independent evidence which can corroborate the same. Therefore, the plea of R-3/ Insurance Company seeking exoneration is hereby declined.
32. Accordingly, R-3/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 25/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.28 13:00:44 +0530 (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioners and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 8% per annum, failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
33. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
34. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 26/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 13:00:47 +0530 of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
35. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records. File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 03.01.2025.
Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 13:00:51 +0530 Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) on this 28.11.2024 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE OF PRABHAT KUMAR
1. Date of accident : 19.07.2021 MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 27/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.11.28 13:00:54 +0530
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Prabhat Kumar
3. Age of the injured : 24 Years
4. Occupation of the injured : Job
5. Income of the injured : Assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages of a Graduate Person prevailing in Delhi at the relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : Different Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : NIL
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : Yes MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 28/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 13:00:57 +0530
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.94,980/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance
Rs. 50,000/- each
(iii) Expenditure on special diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income Rs. 1,25,856/- (Rs. 20,976/- X
6)
MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 29/32
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28
13:01:00 +0530
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Rs.50,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Discomfort, Inconvenience NIL
and Loss of earnings to the
Parents during the period of
hospitalization
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 30/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 13:01:06 +0530 (I) Percentage of disability 06% w.r.t. his right upper limb assessed and 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 06% earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs.3,80,589/-
(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.9,01,425/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 8% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.2,16,342/-(rounded off) date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.11,17,767/-
interest MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 31/32 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 13:01:10 +0530
18. Award amount released Rs.3,17,767/-
19. Award amount kept in As per award FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioners(s)
21. Next date for compliance 03/01/2025 of the award.
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 28.11.2024.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 03.01.2025.Digitally signed
by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.28 (DR. PANKAJ13:01:17 SHARMA) +0530 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/28/11/2024 MACT No. 806/21 Prabhat Kumar Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. PageDigitally No. signed by PANKAJ 32/32 PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.11.28 13:01:20 +0530