Delhi District Court
Sonia (I)(Fir292//Burari) vs Vicky on 2 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010144932016
MACT No. : 358425/16
FIR No. : 292/2016
PS : Burari
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Ms. Sonia
W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar
R/o H. No. 27/1, Gali No. 2,
A-Block, Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi. ......Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Vicky (Driver)
S/o Sh. Bhawani Shankar
R/o H.No. 1506, Gali No. 7, B-Block,
Baba colony, Burari, Delhi.
2. Mr. Jitender Garg (Owner)
S/o Mr. R.P. Garg
R/o B-3/237, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. ......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 18.10.2016
Judgment reserved on : 30.11.2024
Date of Award : 02.12.2024
AWAR D
The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed on 18.10.2016
was registered as a Motor Accident Claim petition. The DAR revealed
that a Road Traffic Accident took place on 13.06.2016 at about 20:20
MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 1 of 41
Hrs. at Gali No. 2, A-Block, Baba Colony, Delhi-110084 wherein the
petitioner, Ms. Sonia, had sustained grievous injuries. The accident took
place with a vehicle bearing registration No. DL 2CAA 8424 driven by
respondent no. 1, Mr. Vicky and owned by respondent no.2, Mr. Jitender
Garg. The offending vehicle is stated to be without insurance.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on 13.06.2016, the information of an accident was received at P.S. Burari vide DD No. 70B. ASI Vinod Kumar along with Ct. Satya Prakash went to the spot of accident where one car bearing registration no. DL 2CAA 8424 was found parked in an accidental condition. On enquiry, they got to know that the injured had been taken to Trauma Centre by the PCR van. ASI Vinod Kumar went to the said hospital after leaving Ct. Satya Prakash at the spot where injured Sonia was found under treatment vide MLC No. 227353/16 and since the patient was stated to be fit for statement, he recorded her statement wherein she stated that she had been residing at 27/1, A Block, Baba Colony, Gali No. 2, Burari, Delhi since last two years and on 13.06.2016 at about 8.20 PM, she along with her son Satyam was walking in the street as there was no electricity supply at that time. Her neighbour ( Pados Ki Mataji) was sitting on her cot and she also sat with her on the said cot and at that very time, one car bearing registration no. DL 2C AA 8424 make Maruti Suzuki Esteem which was driven by its driver at very high speed in a very rash and negligent manner, came from the side of 60 foota road and hit in the cot (charpai) due to which, the cot got damaged and she sustained MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 2 of 41 grievous injury in her left leg. She further stated that her son fell far from her lap who also sustained injury. The driver came out of his car and after seeing her condition, he tried to flee away from the spot but people around there caught him. The name of the driver was later disclosed as Vicky S/o Sh. Bhawani Shankar, R/o H. No. 1506, Gali No. 7, B Block, Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi and she could identify him if shown to her. She also stated that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and therefore, she prayed that appropriate legal action be taken against the driver of the offending vehicle. On the basis of the MLC and statement of the injured, the offence under section 279/337 IPC was found to have been committed and accordingly, the FIR No. 292/2016 was registered at P.S. Burari.
3. During the course of investigation, the IO prepared the site plan of the spot of accident and seized the offending vehicle. He also seized the driving license of the driver and RC of the offending vehicle. The driver caught by the public was arrested by the IO. The IO had deposited the MLC of the injured in the hospital for final opinion as per which, the injury was found to be 'grievous' and therefore, section 337 IPC was replaced with 338 of IPC. Thereafter, further investigation of the present matter was transferred to HC Ravinder Singh.
4. During further course of investigation, the IO HC Ravinder Singh got the driving license of the driver and registration certificate of the offending vehicle verified and they were found valid and effective. He got the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle conducted.
MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 3 of 41He searched for the registered owner Sh. Jitender Garg who disclosed that he had sold his car i.e. offending vehicle on 09.04.2013 to one Mr. Kapil Janiwal and produced the delivery receipt. Then, he issued notice to subsequent owner, Sh. Kapil Singh Janiwal, who disclosed that he had purchased the offending vehicle from Sh. Jitender Garg but he did not get the same transferred in his name and he also disclosed that he had sold the said vehicle to one Mr. Vicky, S/o Sh. Bhawani Shankar in June, 2016 and he did not issue any delivery receipt. The IO recorded the statements under Section 161 Cr.PC of both the previous owners. He enquired from Mr. Vicky about the ownership of the offending vehicle who admitted the fact of purchasing the said vehicle from Mr. Kapil Singh Janiwal and stated that he could not get the said vehicle transferred in his name and the said accident occurred with his vehicle. The driver had committed an offence under Section 146/196 M.V. Act by driving the offending vehicle without any insurance and accordingly, Section 146/196 M.V. Act were added in the challan. On completion of investigation, chargesheet under section 279/338 IPC and Section 146/196 M.V. Act was filed against the driver Vicky and DAR was filed before the court on 18.10.2016.
5. The respondents did not file any written statement despite various opportunities and therefore, their defence was struck off vide order dated 21.03.2018. Respondent no. 1 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 04.03.2024.
ISSUES FRAMED
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 4 of 41 21.03.2018, this Tribunal had framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the injured/petitioner Smt. Sonia suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 13.06.2016 at about 8:20 P.M. involving CAR bearing registration no. DL-2C-AA-8424 driven by the Respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent no. 2? (OPP.)
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP.)
(iii) Relief.
EVIDENCE
7. To prove his case, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1, Mr. Jagdish, Ahlmad from the court of Sh. Mayank Aggarwal, MM-as PW-2 and Sh. Anil Kumar, Record Clerk from Sushruta Trauma Centre as PW-3. Respondents did not lead any evidence and RE was closed.
8. The Petitioner filed the Form XIV. Financial statement of the petitioner has been recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioner and respondent no. 3.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
9. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE No. 1:MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 5 of 41
Whether the injured/petitioner Smt. Sonia suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 13.06.2016 at about 8:20 P.M. involving CAR bearing registration no. DL-2C-AA-8424 driven by the Respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent no. 2? (OPP.)
10. Before delving into the facts of the current case to decide the aforementioned issues, it is pertinent to highlight that it is firmly established in legal precedents that the proceedings conducted before the Claims Tribunal are in the nature of an inquiry. Further, procedural approach adopted by an accident claims' tribunal mirrors that of a civil court (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009 ACJ 287). In civil proceedings, the establishment of facts hinges on a preponderance of probabilities, rather than being bound by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt, as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in civil cases is lighter than in criminal cases, and the burden to decide claim petition under The Motor Vehicles Act is even lesser as compared to a civil litigation. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
11. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legal principle for adjudicating the present issue, this Tribunal has thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses and all the material available on record.
MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 6 of 41Also, careful consideration has been given to the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsels for all the parties.
The factum of accident:
12. In this matter to prove the occurrence of the accident as well as the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner (PW-1) in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A had deposed as under:-
"1. ...
2. That on the unfortunate day i.e. 13.06.2016 at about 8:20 P.M. the petitioner/deponent was walking in the gali with her minor child aged about 7 months in her lap. One old lady (Mataji) residing in the neighbourhood was sitting on her "charpai" in the street due to the electricity breakdown. The petitioner/deponent also sat on the same charpai. All of a sudden one Maruti Suzuki Esteen Car bearing No. DL-2C-AA-8424, came from the side of 60 Foota Road, being driven by the respondent no. 1 (Sh. Vicky) rashly and negligently at a high speed without following the rules and regulations of traffic and hit the charpai (where petitioner was sitting on). As a result of which, the charpai was broken and the petitioner/deponent sustained many injuries including in her left leg, which was crushed by the offending vehicle, the bone of her said left leg was fractured/totally damaged due to the heavy impact. The minor son of the petitioner due to the forceful impact fell at a distance on the road and also sustained internal injuries on his person. The respondent no.1/driver of the offending vehicle tried to run away from the spot without caring for the petitioner and her minor child, but he was caught by the people. The police was informed on PCR number 100 and PCR van reached the spot and took the petitioner/deponent and her kid to Trauma Centre, for immediate treatment, where her MLC was conducted and the petitioner was operated by doctors and remained admitted for about 17 dys, w.e.f.
13.06.2016 to 20.06.2016 and from 27.06.2016 to MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 7 of 41 05.07.2016. After operation of her left leg, the doctors inserted/fixed steel rod in her leg. While the petitioner/deponent was under treatment at Trauma Centre, most of the medicine were purchased from outside by paying the cost of the same. Even the steel rod was purchased by the petitioner from her own pocket. The petitioner is still under continuous treatment under the concerned doctors of Trauma Centre, as well as private doctors and also getting treatment from the physiotherapist, as she is still not able to stand or move properly on her legs and is still dependent upon others.
3. The said offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed contrary to the Motor Vehicle Act and rules framed therein and due to which the injured petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The FIR was lodged vide FIR No. 292/16 by the P.S. Burari u/s 279/338 of IPC and Sec. 146/196 M.V. Act and DAR was filed by the IO of the case.
4. That the treatment of the petitioner is still continue and she has spent more than Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) on her treatment, which may be increased with the passage time, as she is still under treatment.
5. That prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and hearty and was self-employed as she is B.A., LLB and was practicing at the District Courts of Delhi and was earning approx. Rs. 20,000/- per month that after the said accident, the petitioner is unable to stand on her own legs or walk and is dependent on others. The petitioner/deponent after accident till date is not able to attend her work and is not able to attend her work even in near future. The petitioner is not even able to look after/take care of her infact child, who needs her proper care and custody. The income of the petitioner might have been increased with the passage of time if the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle would have driven the vehicle properly and had followed the traffic rules and would not have driven the same in rash and negligent manner and the aforesaid accident would not have taken place.
MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 8 of 416. That prior to the accident, the petitioner was possessing very good health and was not suffering from any ailment. It is further submitted that due to the said accident, the petitioner suffered with permanent disability as she is facing problems while moving and standing. The rod was inserted into the left leg of the petitioner and doctors have given the estimated cost of the operation for removing of the road implant at Rs.50,000/- approx. Doctor/Hospital has also advised for insertion of new rod after removing the old one and the approximate cost of insertion of new rod including the cost of rod would be around Rs. 1.50 Lakhs (Rupee One Lakh and Fifty Thousand). When the said rod would be removed, the petitioner would/will not be able to join her work and would remain on complete bed rest at that time also and for some time thereafter, and would also not be able to take care of her family/children. The doctors have also advised the petitioner to take special diet for her proper recovery. The petitioner has also taken the services of the attendant and domestic servant for household work, due to the said accident. After the said accident and even till the date, the petitioner spent a lot of money on the treatment, diet and conveyance etc. which is still continuing. That due to the said accident, the working capacity of the petitioner has been decreased many fold and presently she is not in a position to work.
7. That the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. the respondent no. 2 (Shri Jitender Garg) is the owner of the offending vehicle, so the respondents are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) up to date interest @ 15 per annum to the petitioner/deponent independently, jointly severally and co-extensively. The respondents are liable to compensate the petitioner for medical expenses, loss of future prospects, attendant charges and loss of amenity due to injuries sustained in the said accident and are further liable to pay for the damages, losses of income and for physical and mental pain and agony suffered by the petitioner due to the said accident.
8. That the petitioner/deponent has filed present petition/claim for compensation, the contents of the MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 9 of 41 same are correct and true. The petition/claim application bears the signatures of the deponent. The contents of the same may also be read as part and parcel of this Affidavit and same may be allowed as prayed for therein. The IO has also filed a DAR before this Court.
9. That the deponent has already filed relevant documents. The copy of Election Identity Card of the deponent is Ex. PW-1/1, copy of Election Identity Card of the husband of the deponent is Ex. PW-1/2, copy of Enrolment Certificate and Identity Card issued by Bar Council of UP is Ex. PW-1/3 (Colly.), the cop of Mark Sheet of LL.B. final examination is Ex. PW-1/4. The FIR vide FIR No. 292/2016 was registered on the complaint of the deponent, copy of the same is ex. PW-1/5, Copy of the Statement of the Deponent given to police is Ex. PW-1/6, copy of Asal Tehrir is Ex. PW-1/7, copy of the Site plan showing spot of accident, prepared by IO on the instance of Deponent is Ex.PW-1/8. The copy of MLC of deponent is Ex.
PW-1/9, copy of Discharge Summary is Ex. PW-1/10 (Colly.), copies of OPD Cards are Ex. PW-1/11. The copy of OPD Sheet of Sant Stephan Hospital is Ex. PW-1/12. The estimate given by St. Stephan Hospital for operation of insertion of new rod is Ex. Pw-1/13. The minor son of the deponent namely Satyam was in the lap of the deponent who was referred by the Trauma Centre to Lok Nayak Hospital. The copies of Medical Reports of Satyam (Minor son) are Ex. PW-1/14. The copies of Medical Bills/Invoices are Ex. PW-1/15 (Colly.)."
13. PW-1 has proved the factum of the accident and the identity of respondent no.1. She has unequivocally testified that respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which led to the accident in question. She deposed that on 13.06.2016 at about 8:20 P.M., she was walking in the gali with her minor child aged about 7 months in her lap and one old lady (Mataji) residing in her neighbourhood was sitting on her "Charpai" in the street due to the MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 10 of 41 electricity breakdown so she also sat on the same charpai. She further deposed that all of a sudden, one Maruti Suzuki Esteen Car bearing No. DL-2C-AA-8424, came from the side of 60 Foota Road, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 (Sh. Vicky) rashly and negligently at a high speed without following the rules and regulations of traffic and hit the charpai on which she was sitting. She also deposed that as a result of this accident, the charpai broke and she sustained many injuries including in her left leg, which was crushed by the offending vehicle. She deposed that the bone of her left leg was fractured/totally damaged due to the heavy impact and her minor son fell at a distance on the road and sustained internal injuries. The petitioner as PW-1 further testified that she along with her minor child was taken to Trauma Centre, for immediate treatment, where she was operated upon and remained admitted for about 17 days, w.e.f. 13.06.2016 to 20.06.2016 and from 27.06.2016 to 05.07.2016. She has also deposed that after operation of her left leg, the doctors inserted/fixed steel rod in her leg. The deposition of PW-1 as to the manner of the accident and the driving of the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent no. 1 remained unshaken during cross-examination of the said witness and in fact was strengthened during the same.
14. Moreover, the petitioner had no prior acquaintance with respondent no.1 before the accident, and it is undisputed that there existed no pre-existing animosity between them. Therefore, it defies every logic as to why the petitioner would falsely implicate respondent no.1 if he was not the one driving the offending vehicle. The respondent no.1, who was the driver of the vehicle, would have been the most MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 11 of 41 crucial witness capable of refuting the petitioner's allegations of the occurrence of the accident and rash and negligent driving. However, neither did he file any written statement nor he stepped into the witness box. Thus, adverse inference is drawn against the respondents. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310. No convincing material has been brought on record by the respondents to show that no accident took place or that respondent no. 1 was not rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle. From the testimony of PW-1 and entire record, it stands proved that respondent no.1 acted in a rash and negligent while driving his vehicle due to which the petitioner suffered injuries.
15. Furthermore, in view of filing of DAR containing the charge-sheet for the offences u/s 279/338 IPC and other relevant documents against the respondent no.1 and in terms of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, respondent no.1 Vicky (driver of the offending vehicle) is held to be negligent on the basis of preponderance of probability. From the DAR, it also stands established that the offending vehicle was owned MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 12 of 41 by respondent no. 2, Jitender Garg.
The injury:
16. The petitioner (PW-1) testified that due to the accident, she sustained grievous injuries in her leg and that she was taken to Trauma Centre where she was treated vide MLC No. 227353 dated 13.06.2016 and the alleged history has been mentioned as "road traffic accident".
Her discharge summary shows that the petitioner/injured was admitted in the hospital from 14.06.2016 till 20.06.2016 and another discharge summary shows that she was again admitted from 27.06.2016 to 05.07.2016.
17. Furthermore, the petitioner had filed an application to be examined for assessment of physical disability. She was examined by the Medical Board at Lok Nayak Hospital and vide certificate bearing No. F.D.M.S./OPD/Dis.Court Matter/LNH/2024/1046 dated 01.08.2024, it has been observed that "Based on X-Ray assessment and Occupational Therapy/ Physiotherapy assessment, Locomotor Disability assessed to be 15% (Fifteen percent) and temporary in nature. To be assessed after six months."
18. From the above deposition and in totality of the circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to bring on record sufficient facts so as to prove at the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL-2CAA-8424 by its driver/respondent no. 1 on MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 13 of 41 the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury and total temporary disability of 15%. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
19. The onus of proving the above issue was upon the petitioner/injured. It has already been concluded in the preceding paragraphs while deciding the issue no. 1, that the petitioner had suffered grievous injury and temporary Locomotor Disability to the extent of 15%.
20. The petitioner is certainly entitled for compensation in view of decision of the discussion on the above issues. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its guiding lamp post judgment for ascertaining just compensation in road vehicular injury cases. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 14 of 41 done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i),
(ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 15 of 41 where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads
(ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item
(i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) --
depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv),
(v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item
(ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability.
6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 16 of 41 perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 17 of 41 wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 18 of 41 actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 19 of 41 therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may."
21. In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. However, in cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the claim of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The assessment of future medical expenses would depend upon specific medical evidence/advise for further treatment and costs thereof. The determination of damages on account of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life would depend upon the age of victim, nature of injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and the effect thereof on life of the petitioner. The process would involve determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those heads. In the case of assessment of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, this Tribunal needs to first ascertain whether the MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 20 of 41 disability noted/assessed by the medical board is temporary or permanent in nature. If the disability is permanent in nature, then whether it is a total permanent disability or partial permanent disability. If the disability has been referred/expressed in percentage terms, in reference to any specific limb then the effect of such disability of the limb on the function of entire body has to be ascertained. Once, the permanent disability is ascertained, then the Tribunal needs to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect the earning capacity of the claimant. To ascertain the same, the Tribunal needs to ascertain the avocation, profession and nature of work of the claimant before the incident. The Tribunal also needs to ascertain his age and then needs to ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of permanent disability and what he could not do as result of same. The Tribunal then also needs to ascertain whether the claimant is totality disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on activities and functions which he was carrying on earlier or whether the claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood despite permanent disability suffered. After ascertaining the functional disability through the above process, the Tribunal needs to workout the loss of earning capacity per month. The Tribunal is thereafter required to workout loss of earning capacity per annum. An appropriate multiplier needs to be ascertained as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC according to age of the injured/victim. The total loss of earning capacity MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 21 of 41 then needs to be worked out multiplying appropriate multiplier ascertained with ascertained annual loss of earning capacity. This is a case where temporary disability is claimed and compensation is also demanded qua future loss of earnings on account of the said disability, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above preposition.
Determination of Injuries and Duration of the Treatment:
22. It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner/ injured and duration of treatment as they need to be kept in mind while ascertaining the compensation under different applicable heads. It has already been proved that the petitioner has suffered 15% temporary Locomotor Disability and that she was hospitalised w.e.f. 14.06.2016 to 20.06.2016 and then again from 27.06.2016 to 05.07.2016. Her compensation is computed as follows:
Medical expenses:
23. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses in her Form XIV. In this regard, the petitioner has placed reliance on the following original medical bills:Table No. 1
S. HOSPITAL/PHARMACY BILL NO. BILL AMOUNT No. NAME DATE
1. Care Medicos, Delhi 37128 27.06.16 99
2. Friends Medicos SO-36727 14.06.16 63 MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 22 of 41
3. Manglam 19286 14.06.16 95
4. SRM Pathology, Delhi 257 15.06.16 500
5. Manglam 19638 15.06.16 1660.50
6. Goyal Pharmacy & Opticals, 65747 16.06.16 159.39 Delhi
7. Goyal Pharmacy & Opticals, 66560 17.06.16 79 Delhi
8. Goyal Pharmacy & Opticals, 66568 17.06.16 10 Delhi
9. Manglam M09142 17.06.16 153
10. Ortho Surgical System, Delhi. 252 17.06.16 5,775
11. Manglam M20395 18.06.16 99.22
12. Manglam M20737 20.06.16 56.70
13. Aapka Bazaar 25750 20.06.16 128
14. Manglam M20738 20.06.16 75
15. Jesus Medicos, Delhi 32 21.06.16 404
16. Care Medicos 37495 28.06.16 23.98
17. Haji Medicos. 1078 01.07.20 90
18. Manglam M23208 01.07.16 470.25
19. Shradha Medicos 131 12.07.16 156.21
20. Manglam M26818 15.07.16 85.85
21. Manglam M26819 15.07.16 69.30
22. Medi-Aid Surgicals 4106 16.07.16 1100
23. Shradha Medicos 195 29.07.16 135
24. Shradha Medicos 194 29.07.16 154
25. Dev Medical Store 353 18.08.16 231
26. Medi-Aid Surgicals 4351 20.08.16 550
27. Aapka Dawa Bazaar 74679 23.10.16 60
28. Goyal Pharmacy & Opticals, 132376 29.08.16 77 Delhi
29. Shalu Medicos 309 28.09.16 345 TOTAL 12,904.40/-MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 23 of 41
24. All the bills appear to be proper and hence, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for Rs. 12,904.40/- towards medical expenses.
Therefore, the petitioner/ injured Sonia is entitled to Rs. 12,904.40/- towards medical expenses.
Loss of income:
25. Coming to the aspect of loss of income, the petitioner Sonia claimed that she is a lawyer and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month.
Although, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deposition of the petitioner with respect to her income has remained unrebutted but she has admitted in her cross-examination that she has not filed any proof to prove her income. Therefore, her income will have to be assessed as per minimum wages. The petitioner has filed on record her Election card bearing no. AZK3236923 as per which she was a resident of Delhi. She has also filed her Bar Council Identity card which shows that she was a qualified lawyer. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income and considering her address to be of Delhi, the minimum wages for a graduate prevalent in Delhi at the time of the accident (on 13.06.2016) i.e. Rs. 12,662/- is taken as the income of the petitioner/ injured Sonia. Therefore, it is held that the monthly income of the petitioner/ injured Sonia at the time of the accident i.e. on 13.06.2016 was Rs. 12,661/-. Further, the petitioner has claimed that she could not go to work for 10 months. However, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to the Loss of Income for 04 months i.e. Rs. 12,661/- x 4 = Rs.50,644/-.
MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 24 of 41Pain and Suffering:
26. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering. It is true that a particular amount cannot be fixed under the head pain and suffering which could be applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner has received grievous injuries, therefore, petitioner must have suffered pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner as mentioned in the MLC as well as the disability certificate, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs. 50,000/-
towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental shock:
27. The petitioner/ injured has claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- under the head mental and physical shock. Though there cannot be any proof of the mental shock suffered by anyone and the same cannot be quantified in terms of money but considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner as mentioned in the MLC as well as the disability certificate, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs. 50,000/-
towards mental shock to the petitioner.
Special Diet:
28. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 90,000/- under the head special diet but there is no cogent evidence on record regarding money MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 25 of 41 spent by the petitioner upon special diet. However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this head.
Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet.
Conveyance charges:
29. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 25,000/- under the head conveyance charges but there is no cogent evidence for the same.
However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have incurred some expense on conveyance. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
30. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 50,000/- under the head attendant charges but there is no cogent evidence for the same.
However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have incurred some expense on attendant. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards attendant charges.
Compensation for loss of amenities:
31. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- under this head. The petitioner has not filed anything on record to prove her claim, MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 26 of 41 however, taking into account the injuries suffered by her and also noticing the disability suffered by her, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Compensation for loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
32. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- under this head. The petitioner has not filed anything on record to prove her claim, however, taking into account the injuries suffered by her and also noticing the disability suffered by her, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Cost of Artificial Limb:
33. The petitioner/injured Sonia has claimed Rs. 25,000/- for installation/ fixing of rod in her fractured leg. She has filed an estimate by St. Stephen's Hospital (Ex. PW-1/13) as per which the estimated cost of implanting l/m nail tibia is Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner is granted Rs. 30,000/- under this head.
Any other loss/expenditure:
34. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- for getting her steel rod removed. She has stated that she needs Rs. 50,000/- for the removal of steel rod. In view of this, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 27 of 41
Disfiguration:
35. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- towards disfiguration, however, there is nothing on record that shows that the petitioner has suffered disfiguration.
Future loss of income:
36. The petitioner Sonia has claimed loss of earning to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner suffered disability in her leg due to which her legal profession has suffered a lot as she cannot run from court to court or travel from one district court to another. He urged that the case of the petitioner should be considered for future loss of income. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 argued that the disability is only temporary which can improve with physiotherapy and further treatment, thus, her case cannot be considered for future loss of income.
37. It has already been established that the petitioner has suffered 15% disability and even though the disability claimed is temporary but it is imperative to bear in mind that the accident took place in the year 2016 and even in the year 2024 that is almost 8 years later, disability has come out in the assessment as temporary. Further, the petitioner was a young lawyer with dreams to grow and win accolades which have been washed away due to the accident in question.
Therefore, since the petitioner/injured has essentially suffered disability in her leg which is an important limb to even move around and MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 28 of 41 considering that she was a lawyer which involved moving around at all times, this Tribunal is of the view that the accident has rendered her disabled which will definitely hinder her professional life. Therefore, for the purposes of the present case and considering that the nature of the disability opined by the Board of doctors, the functional disability of the petitioner/ injured is assessed at 5 %.
38. As per the Aadhar Card bearing no. 5908 3444 7427, the date of birth of the injured/ petitioner Sonia is 05.05.1986, thus, as on the date of accident i.e. 13.06.2016, the petitioner was aged 30 years 01 month and 08 days old. Accordingly, the Multiplier of seventeen (17) is taken for purposes of calculating the loss of income of the petitioner (Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision - 31.10.2017). Further, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the future prospects of Sonia shall be 40% as she was self employed and below the age of 40 years at the time of accident on 13.06.2016.
39. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 12,661/-In view of the above, the loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs. 12,661/-
Annual Income Rs. 12,661/- x 12 =
MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 29 of 41
Rs. 1,51,932/-
Add Future Prospects @ 40% Rs. 1,51,932/- x 40% =
Rs. 60,772.80/-
Total income Rs. 2,12,704.80/-
Disability @ 5% Rs. 2,12,704.80 x 5%= Rs. 10,635.24/-
Loss of Income after multiplier (17) Rs. 10,635.24 x 17 = Rs. 1,80,799.08/-
40. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by her, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 1,80,799.08/- under the head future loss of income.
41. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 12,904.40/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 12,661/- Loss of income x 4 months Rs. 50,644/- Loss of future income Rs. 1,80,799.08/- Any other loss/expenditure Rs. 50,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & 50,000 + 50,000= Suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-
Special diet Rs. 20,000/-
Attendant charges Rs. 20,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/-
MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 30 of 41
Disfiguration Nil.
Loss of Marriage prospects Nil.
Cost of Artificial Limb Rs. 30,000/-
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 50,000/-
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
Total Rs. 5,84,347.48/-
(rounded off to Rs. 5,84,347/-)
42. In the case of Benson George v Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 2022 decided on 25.02.2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded an interest of 6% per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 18.10.2016 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
43. The Financial Statement of the petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of her family are approximately Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/- per month.
44. Keeping in view the above, it is held that on realization of the award amount, Rs. 1,84,347/- (Rupees One Lac Eighty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Seven only), plus entire interest amount be released to the petitioner/claimant Sonia and the balance MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 31 of 41 amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) shall be put in 16 monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 16 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
45. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to the petitioner only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account in a bank near her residence with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
46. The above FDR(s) shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 32 of 41 bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants.
However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.
47. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 13.06.2016
2. Name of the Injured: Sonia
3. Age of the Injured: 30 years
4. Occupation of the Injured: Lawyer MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 33 of 41
5. Income of the Injured: Rs. 12,661/-
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken: Sushruta Trauma Centre.
8. Period of Hospitalization: 14.06.2016 to 20.06.2016 and 27.06.2016 to 05.07.2016.
9. Whether any permanent No. disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 12,904.40/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 20,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 20,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 12,661/-
(vi) Loss of income x 4 months Rs. 50,644/-
(vii) Add future prospects Rs. 60,772.80/-
(viii) Any other loss which may Rs. 50,000/-
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life: future treatment and
future attendant charges.
2.
MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 34 of 41
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 50,000 + 50,000=
physical shock Rs. 1,00,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration
Nil.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 50,000
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
(vii) Cost of Artificial Limb Rs. 30,000/-
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 15% Temporary and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil.
expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 5% capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income Rs. 1,80,799.08/-
4. Total Rs. 5,84,347.48/-
1(i+ii+iii+iv+vi+viii) (rounded off to Rs. 5,84,347/-) +2(i+ii+iii+vi+vii) + 3(iv)
5. Total Compensation Rs. 5,84,347/-
Interest awarded 6%
MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 35 of 41
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous
award passed by Ld. -
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 2,84,771.76/-
award w.e.f. 18.10.2016 till
realization. (08 years 01 month
and 14 days)
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 8,69,118.76/-
(rounded off to Rs. 8,69,119/-)
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 44
10. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para no. 44
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 44
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 02.01.2025
award
LIABILITY:
48. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 Vicky and owned by respondent no. 2, Jitender Garg. Although, respondent no. 2 has stated that he had already sold his vehicle but the offending vehicle still stands registered in the name of respondent no. 2, Jitender Garg. Therefore, both respondent nos. 1 and 2 will be jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount to the petitioner.
Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 36 of 41RELIEF
49. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,84,347/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Seven only) along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 18.10.2016 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant, failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
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)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 02.01.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
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).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 37 of 41 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 after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RUCHI RUCHI AGGARWAL
Announced in the open Court today AGGARWAL ASRANI
Date:
ASRANI
on this 2nd day of December, 2024. 2024.12.02 16:21:44 +0530 (Dr. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 38 of 41FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 13.06.2016 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report Not available
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
to the victim(s) Not available
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
from the Driver Not available
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner Not available
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance Not available
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from Not available
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
Detail Accident Report 18.10.2016
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company 10.11.2021
MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 39 of 41
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes.
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Designated No.
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of No response
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 02.12.2024
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open
savings bank account(s) Yes.
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN 30.11.2024
card and Aadhar Card and
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the Not produced.
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 40 of 41
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card?
18 Permanent residential As per Award.
address of the claimant(s).
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes.
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant was of passing of the Award to recorded on 30.11.2024.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by RUCHI RUCHI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL ASRANI
ASRANI Date:
2024.12.02
16:21:35 +0530
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
PO, MACT-01 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
02.12.2024
MACT No. 358425/16 Sonia Vs. Vicky & Anr. Page 41 of 41