Delhi District Court
Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. vs Pawan Kumar And Ors. on 25 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG : PRESIDING
OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET COURTS :
NEW DELHI
MACT No. 500/17
Bidyadhar Behra & ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors.
FIR No. 488/17, PS Saket
1. Bidyadhar Behra,
S/o Sh. G. Behra,
R/o H.No. 36-C, Sector 4,
Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Rashmita Behra,
W/o Bidyadhar Behra,
R/o H.no. 36-C, Sector-04,
Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Khirabdi Taniya Behra,
D/o Bidyahdar Behra,
R/o H.no. 36-C, Sector -04,
Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Pawan Kumar,
S/o Sh. Deen Dayal,
R/o H.No. 45, Gaushala,
Kishangarh, New Delhi.
.................. (Driver-cum-owner)
2. Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd.,
New Delhi
..................... (Insurance Co.)
......Respondents
MACT No. 500/17,
Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 1 of 33
Date of Institution : 07.12.2017
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 25.05.2022
Date of pronouncement : 25.05.2022
JUDGMENT:
1. This order shall dispose off detailed accident report (hereinafter referred as DAR) filed by SHO of PS Saket for seeking compensation in regard to the injury sustained to the claimant/ petitioner in a road accident occurred on 02.10.2017 at about 07.30 pm near in front of Gate Sector -04, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Facts of this case need not having big canvas:-
"On 02.10.2017 injured Bidyadhar Behra along with his daughter and wife was going on his scooty bearing no. DL-3S-DP-13565 via Amity School. When he reached Pushp Vihar Sector 4 and took right turn to enter gate no. 4, in the meanwhile, a TSR bearing no. HR-99- AAT (Tempo)624 being driven and owned by the respondent no. 1/ Pawan Kumar came in a rash and negligent manner had hit the injured persons. Resulting to which, they fell down and sustained injuries."
MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 2 of 33
3. WS has not been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1/ driver cum owner despite ample opportunity having been given to him. Vide order dated 24.08.2018, the opportunity for filing the WS on behalf of the respondent no. 1 stood closed. Thereafter, respondent no. 1/ driver cum owner had not appeared before the court. Hence, respondent no. 1 vide order dated 25.05.2019 was proceeded ex- parte.
4. WS has been filed on behalf of the insurance company wherein it has been stated that the accident took place by the offending vehicle Bajaj TSR bearing no. HR-99-AA-T(Tempo)-1624 which was insured with the Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co. Ltd. in the name of Mr. Pawan Kumar bearing policy no. 2013-200201-17- 1000033-00-000 as a passenger carrying commercial vehicle valid from 11.04.2017 to 10.04.2018. It has been further stated that the police registered an FIR no. 488/17 at PS Saket under Section 279/337/338 IPC and under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The alleged offending vehicle was being driven by the driver-cum- owner in contravention with Motor Vehicle Act and he was not MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 3 of 33 holding a driving license at the time of accident. Therefore, IO has filed the charge sheet under Section 279/338 IPC & Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicle Act against the driver. It has been further submitted by the insurance company that the offending vehicle was being plied without obtaining valid and effective permit as well as fitness certificate form concerned authority at the time of accident. It has been further submitted that the accident took place at Saket, Delhi and the permit with respect to the alleged offending vehicle was issued by the RTA, Gurgaon, Haryana for plying and carry the passenger for Gurugaon Municipal Corporation area only. The driver of the offending vehicle being used by the insured is in violation of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the vehicle is being plied on road without obtaining valid and effective permit and fitness certificate.
5. After completion of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 18.01.2018, following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether the injured persons Bidyadhar Behra, Rashmita Behra and Khirabdi Taniya Behra sustained injuries in the road accident on 02.10.2017 at about 7.30 pm near in front of Gate Sector -04, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi due to rash and negligent MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 4 of 33 driving of offending vehicle bearing no. HR-55-AB-8053 being driven and owned by Pawan Kumar and Insured with Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company ltd. (...OPP).
2. To what amount of compensation, the petitioners is entitled and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. In order to substantiate his claim, petitioner has examined himself as well as his wife as PW 1 and PW 2 respectively. Both the witnesses have deposed on the same line in regard to the manner of the accident as they are injured in the present case and sustained injury.
PW 1 has relied upon the following documents:-
1. Ex. PW 1/A is the MLC.
2. Ex. PW 1/B is the discharge summary.
3. Ex. PW 1/C are the medical bills collectively.
4. Ex. PW 1/D are the copy of the OPD cards.
5. Ex. PW 1/E is the DAR completely.
6. Ex. PW 1/F is the salary slip.
7. Ex. PW 1/G is the Aadhar card of the deponent.
He further deposed in respect of the claim of his daughter Khirabdhi sustained injuries in the same accident. The MLC bearing no. 607/17 dated 02.10.2017 of Max Hospital and discharge summary of his daughter has already been exhibited as Ex. PW 1/1 MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 5 of 33 collectively. The school I-Card and aadhar card of his daughter are already exhibited part of the DAR. He has spent around Rs. 8000- 10000/- on the treatment of his daughter and placed on record her medical bills. The medical bills are Ex. PW 1/H.
7. This witness has been put to the test of cross examination whereby he deposed that he along with his wife and seven years daughter were going on scooty. He and his wife were wearing helmet. After the accident, he had called 100 number. He remained in the hospital for two years after the accident. His treatment continued till December, 2017. He denied that his bills doe not relate to the present accident. He has not filed any bill on record to show expenditure on special diet and conveyance. He is working as Inspector in National Investigation Agency. He further deposed that at the time of accident, he was earning Rs. 77,235/- per month. He has not taken the amount of the bills from anywhere.
8. PW 2 has relied upon the following documents:-
1. Ex. PW 2/A is the MLC.
2. Ex. PW 2/B is the discharge summary.
3. Ex. PW 2/C is also a discharged summary dated 14.12.2017.
MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 6 of 33
4. Ex. PW 2/D are medical bills.
5. Ex. PW 2/E is the OPD card collectively.
6. Ex. PW 2/F is the aadhar card of the deponent.
During cross examination, PW 2 deposed that she remained in the hospital for two days. However, her treatment continued for around one year. She is graduate. She has not filed any documentary proof in regard to her education. She used to stitch clothes before her accident and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month. She denied that she used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month. She has not filed any bill on record to show her expenditure on special diet and conveyance. She kept attendant seven eight months. She has filed all the medical bills. She is not aware if any of his bill were reimbursed from anywhere.
9. Insurance company/ respondent no. 2 has also examined its witness Ashish Tomar as R2W1. He is the Legal Manager in the insurance company. He deposed the same facts in his affidavit as stated by the insurance company in his written statement. He has relied upon the following documents:-
MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 7 of 33
1. Attested copy of insurance policy along-with terms and conditions Ex. R2W1/1 (15 pages colly).
2. Copy of notice under Order 12 Rule 8 of CPC sent to the driver cum owner/ R-1 is Ex. PW R2W1/2.
3. The postal receipts are collectively Ex. R2W1/3.
10. I have heard the arguments, perused the record and analyzed the evidence (both documentary and oral) witnesses examined and brought by both the parties and my issue-wise findings are as under:- ISSUE NO. 1
11.Needless to say that for making someone entitled U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle needs to be proved and to prove the same the Tribunal need not go into the technicalities because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just, rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. It is an admitted legal position that the negligence on part of the driver with respect to use of the MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 8 of 33 vehicle needs to be established and the same is to be established on the principle of preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III (2015) ACC 435 Delhi.
12.In the present case, respondent no. 1, the driver cum owner has not put his appearance ever before this court. Respondent no. 1 stood ex- parte. It is a matter of fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any driving license and permit at the time of accident. Testimony of PW 1 and 2 remains almost uncontroverted to the facts of the accident as well as manner of the accident. Respondent no. 1 has not put his appearance, therefore, there is no question arises about being doubt of the testimony of the PW 1 and
2. Here, the PW 1 and PW 2 have discharged their burden of proof. Therefore, in these circumstances, it has been proved on record that it was the respondent no. 1 who had caused the accused due to the rash and negligent act of driving of the offending vehicle and caused grievous injury to the injured.
Therefore, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 9 of 33 and against the respondent.
I S S U E No. 2
13.Now the court has to assess that how much compensation is to be given to the petitioners/ injured persons and from whom?
14.First of all the court has to decide to whom the liability to pay the compensation is fastened. Insurance company has taken the plea that he is not liable to pay the compensation because the driver of the offending vehicle has not been possessing the driving license at the time of accident and the IO has filed the charge sheet under section 279/338 IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act against the driver cum owner. This fact demonstrates that the respondent no. 1 was at fault and he was not possessing the driving license at the time of accident.
15.Except this, there is no legal defence available to the respondent no.3 for denying its liability to pay the compensation being the insurer of the offending vehicle, therefore, it is the Insurance Company ie. MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 10 of 33 Respondent no. 2 who is liable to pay the compensation first being the superior in position. Respondent no. 1 i.e., driver cum owner was not having any driving license and for this he was also challaned under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicle Act and the respondent no. 2 has examined the witness to this effect i.e., R2W1 about not having driving license by the driver of the offending vehicle. Moreover, the driver of the offending vehicle was not also having the permit as well as fitness certificate from concerned authority and the permit was with respect to alleged offending vehicle was issued by the RTA, Gurugram, Haryana for plying and carry the passengers for Gurugram Municipal Corporation area only. Therefore, the respondent no. 2 is entitled for recovery rights. Hence, the recovery right is given to the respondent no. 2.
16.Injured persons are entitled to damages for the injury suffered to them arising out of use of Motor Vehicle under both non-pecuniary and pecuniary heads.
COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE INJURED
MACT No. 500/17,
Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 11 of 33
BIDYADHAR BEHERA
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
17.In the present case, the petitioner/ injured Bidyadhar behera has placed on record medical bills of Rs. 4,931/-. As per Ex. PW 1/A, the petitioner/ injured has been diagnosed with "A/H/O RTA at around 8.30 pm on 02.10.2017 near Pushp Vihar, Near Amity international school having lacerated wound on left hand and abrasion on chest". The injury was opined to be simple in nature. He was discharged on the same day. I therefore, award an amount of Rs. 4,931/- to the petitioner/ injured towards the medical expenses. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
18.As per As per Ex. PW 1/A, the petitioner/ injured has been diagnosed with "A/H/O RTA at around 8.30 pm on 02.10.2017 near Pushp Vihar, Near Amity international school having lacerated wound on left hand and abrasion on chest". The injuries on the person of the petitioner/ injured Bidyadhar Behera have been opined to be simple in nature.
Looking into the injuries and treatment of the petitioner, I MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 12 of 33 award Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner towards his pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
19. In the present case the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to his special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. However, the injuries on the person of the injured Bidyadhar Behera were such that he must have taken special diet for his early recovery. He must have spent some amount on conveyance and attendant. Therefore, looking into all the facts, I award Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner/ injured Bidyadhar Behera towards his special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. LOSS OF INCOME:-
20.The petitioner/ injured stated that at the time of accident he was working in National Investigating Agency and has been earning Rs. 77,325/- per month. He has proved his salary slip as Ex. PW 1/F wherein the net pay of the injured is 48,145/-. Accident has happened in Delhi and police has filed the DAR for the injury sustained on the MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 13 of 33 person of the injured Bidyadhar Behera. This fact has not been disputed in the cross examination of the PW 1 by the insurance company. The injuries on the person of the petitioner were such that he must have remained out of work at least for one month. Thus, the loss of income comes to Rs. 48,145/-.
21.The total compensation in favour of the petitioner Bidyadhar Behera is assessed as under :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :Rs. 4931.00
PAIN & SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT
OF LIFE :Rs. 10,000.00
SPEICAL DIET, CONVEYANCE &
ATTENDANT :Rs. 10,000.00
LOSS OF INCOME :Rs. 48,145.00
=============
TOTAL :Rs. 73,076.00
=============
R E LI EF
22.In view of my findings, I award Rs. 73,076/- (Rupees Seventy Three Thousand Seventy Six Only) to the petitioner Bidyadhar Behera as compensation along-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation. The entire amount is directed to be released to the petitioner.
MACT No. 500/17,
Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 14 of 33
COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE INJURED
RASHMITA BEHERA
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
23.In the present case, the petitioner/ injured Rashmita Behera has placed on record medical bills of the Rs. 29,791/-. As per Ex. PW 2/B, the petitioner/ injured has been diagnosed with "Right elbow CLOW SUTURED ON POSTERIOR ASPECT UNDER LA EXAMINATION ROM RESTRICTED AND PAINFUL RAY RIGHT HAND WITH WRIST SUGGESTS DRUJ INSTABILITY AND 5TH METACARPAL AND SCAPHOID FRACTURE ABOVE ELBOW SLAB APPLIED IN MID PRONE POSITION AS SUPINE POSITION COULD NOT BE ASSUMED BY THE PATIENT". The injury was opined to be grievous in nature. He was discharged on the same day. I therefore, award an amount of Rs. 29,791/- to the petitioner/ injured towards the medical expenses. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
24.As per Ex. PW 2/A, the petitioner/ injured has been diagnosed as MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 15 of 33 grievous injury. The injuries on the person of the petitioner/ injured Rashmita Behera have been opined to be simple in nature.
Looking into the injuries and treatment of the petitioner, I award Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner towards his pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
25.In the present case the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to his special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. However, the injuries on the person of the injured Rashmita Behera were such that he must have taken special diet for his early recovery. She must have spent some amount on conveyance and attendant. Therefore, looking into all the facts, I award Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner/ injured Rashmita Behera towards his special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME:-
26.In the present case also the injured is a housewife and does not have any permanent income but she had been rendering gratuitous MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 16 of 33 services to her family. One has to admit that in the long run, the services rendered by a woman in the household sustain a supply of labour to the economy and keep the human societies by weaving the social fabric and keeping it in good repair. The petitioner/ injured stated that at the time of accident she was doing the work of tailoring and cutting work in home and well qualified graduate and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, she has not placed any document on record that she has been earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, this court is left with no option, but to take the minimum wages of 'unskilled' person prevailing in Delhi at the time of accident. The accident was happened on 02.10.2017 and the minimum wages in Delhi were Rs. 13,584/- at the time of accident. Therefore, the income of the deceased is Rs. 13,584/- per month. The injuries on the person of the petitioner were such that he must have remained out of work at least for three months. Thus, the loss of income comes to Rs. 40,752/- (13,584/- x 3).
27.The total compensation in favour of the petitioner Rashmita Behera is assessed as under :
MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 17 of 33 MEDICAL EXPENSES :Rs. 29,791.00 PAIN & SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :Rs. 30,000.00 SPEICAL DIET, CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT :Rs. 30,000.00 LOSS OF INCOME :Rs. 40,752.00 ============= TOTAL :Rs.1,30,543.00 ============= R E LI EF
28.In view of my findings, I award Rs. 1,30,543- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Three Only) to the petitioner Rashmita Behera as compensation along-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation. The entire amount is directed to be released to the petitioner.
COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE INJURED
KHIRABDI TANIYA BEHERA
29.How does one assess a compensation in such a case? No amount of money can compensate the child for the injury suffered to her. He can never be put back in the same position. However, compensation has to be determined in terms of provision of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, the Act). The Act requires the determination of MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 18 of 33 payment of just compensation. It is the duty of the court to ensure that he is paid compensation which is just.
30.The Principal with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Act are well settled. Injuries caused deprivation to the body which entitled the claimant to claim damages. Damage may vary according to the gravity of the injury sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of the injury, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as one losses of earning, second expenses on treatment which include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charge etc. third loss of diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of the particular part of the body and loss of future earning capacity. Claimant is entitled for both pecuniary and non pecuniary damages for the injuries suffered to him in an motor accident.
31.Before considering the award in different heads, it is necessary to examine the medical condition of the petitioner.
32.PW-1 Sh. Bidyadhar Behera, the father of the injured has stated in MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 19 of 33 his affidavit in evidence that her daughter Khirabdhi Behera sustained injuries in the same accident. He has proved the MLC as Ex. PW 3/A.
33.The compensation has to be given following the guidelines as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 7139 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) no. 1676 of 2012 decided on 26.08.2013, according to which the maximum limit for compensation is Rs. 6 lakhs in addition to the actual expenses towards treatment, attendant etc.
34.In any other normal case I would have been convinced with the ld.
counsel for the insurance company and considered his submission but the condition of the injured is exceptional and the cited ruling itself gives exception. The relevant para of the cited ruling is reproduced herein-under and the exception is underlined :
12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 20 of 33 view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure towards treatment, attendant etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% of the whole body, Rs.3,00,000/-; upto 60%, Rs.4,00,000/-; upto 90%, Rs.5,00,000/- and above 90%, it should be Rs.6,00,000/-. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Rs.1,00,000/-, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick.
35.In the case in hand, the circumstances and the condition of the injured is altogether different and the case has to be dealt with differently. Further, the compensation should be just. This ruling already provides consideration of the actual medical expenses and attendant charges and besides these two heads the other heads can be considered separately. I therefore, shall consider and calculate different heads of compensation accordingly.
36.During the course of arguments ld. counsel for the injured submitted that while granting compensation notional income of the injured should be taken into consideration.
37. In the judgment titled as Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hon'ble Supreme Court MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 21 of 33 of India has not taken the notional income of the child into consideration. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgement titled as Kajal Vs Jagdish Chandra announced in 2020 on 05th February had taken step ahead beyond the notional income of a child which is only Rs. 15,000/- per annum and considered the child would have earned the minimum wages after attaining the majority and while awarding the compensation for future loss had taken the minimum wages of unskilled person.
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
38.As per Ex. PW 3/B i.e., discharge summary, the injured was diagnosed with "Left Thumb CLW and left wrist pain AHO RTA today evening CLW Sutured under LA X-ray suggests torus fracture distal radius and ulna below elbow slab applied". The injury on the person of the injured was opined to be grievous in nature. The petitioner has placed on record the medical bills of Rs. 8,536/-.
Therefore, I award Rs. 8,536/- to the injured Khirabdhi Taniya Behera toward medical expenses.
PAIN & SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 22 of 33
39.As per the MLC of the injured, the injured Khirabdhi Taniya Behera was diagnosed CLW Sutured under LA X ray suggests Torus Fracture Distal Radius and Ulna Elbow Elbow Slab Applied. The injury has been opined to be grievous in nature. However, she was discharged on the same day from MAX Hospital. Therefore, I award him Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life. SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE CHARGES & ATTENDANT CHARGES :
40.In the present case the petitioner has not filed on record any bills for special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. However, looking into the injuries and the disability suffered by the petitioner, I award him Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. Thus, the total compensation under this head comes to Rs. 30,000/-.
41.The total compensation in favour of the petitioner baby Khirabdhi Taniya Behera is assessed as under :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :Rs. 8,536.00
PAIN & SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT
OF LIFE :Rs. 50,000.00
SPEICAL DIET, CONVEYANCE &
MACT No. 500/17,
Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 23 of 33
ATTENDANT :Rs. 30,000.00
=============
TOTAL :Rs. 88,536.00
=============
R E LI EF
42.In view of my findings, I award Rs. 88,536/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Six Only) to the petitioner baby Khirabdhi Taniya Behera as compensation along-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation. The entire amount is directed to be kept in the shape of FDR till she attains the age of majority.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
• It is ordered that no amount shall be released to the petitioner unless he produces his passbook in the Tribunal having the endorsement that "no cheque book and no ATM Card has been issued and will not be issued to the petitioner till the entire award amount is exhausted".
• In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 24 of 33 favour of the petitioner with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
• The respondent no.2 is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the Ld. counsel for the insurance company. • The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING A/c 35195787436 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioners.
• MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO
THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE
'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED
PROCEDURE'(MCTAP)
• Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India,
Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 25 of 33 manner :-
• The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi. • Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity. • No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
• The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's . • The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period. • No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court. • Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court. • On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
• Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
• The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs. • The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period. • The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 26 of 33 in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 2
• The Respondent no. 2 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
• The Respondent no.2 is directed to furnish a copy of this award along-with the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
• The Respondent no. 2 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same. • Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no.2.
• The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no. 2 for MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 27 of 33 02.07.2022.
FORM IV-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE OF BIDYADHAR BEHERA • Date of accident : 02.10.2017 • Name of the injured : Bidyadhar behera • Age of the injured: 42 years • Occupation of the injured : Government Service (NIA) • Income of the injured : Rs. 48,145/-
• Nature of injury : Simple
• Medical treatment
taken by the injured : Yes
• Disability: ----
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Rs. 4931/-
Ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs. 10,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of Income Rs. 48,145/-
iv Loss of Study -------
v Any other loss which may require any special -----
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
2 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 28 of 33 i Compensation for mental and physical shock ------- ii Pain and suffering & enjoyment of life Rs. 10,000/-
iii Loss of amenities -----
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects -----
v Loss of marriage prospects -----
vi Compensation on account of permanent -----
disability
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Future Loss of Income ----
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 73,076/-
5 INTEREST AWARDED 6% 6 Total amount of interest Rs. 19,488/-
7 Total amount including interest Rs. 92,564/- 8 Award amount released Rs. 92,564/-
9 Award amount kept in FDRs -----
10 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Entire amount is
to the claimant(s) directed to be
released.
11 Next date for compliance 02.07.2022
FORM IV-B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE OF RASHMITA BEHERA • Date of accident : 02.10.2017 MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 29 of 33 • Name of the injured : Rashmita behera • Age of the injured: 34 Years • Occupation of the injured : Housewife.
• Income of the injured : Rs. 13,584/-
• Nature of injury : Grievous
• Medical treatment
taken by the injured : Yes
• Disability: ----
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Rs. 29,791/-
Ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs. 30,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of Income Rs. 40,752/-
iv Loss of Study -------
v Any other loss which may require any special -----
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
2 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock ------- ii Pain and suffering & enjoyment of life Rs. 30,000/-
iii Loss of amenities -----
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects -----
v Loss of marriage prospects -----
vi Compensation on account of permanent -----
disability
MACT No. 500/17,
Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 30 of 33
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Future Loss of Income ----
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 1,30,543/-
5 INTEREST AWARDED 6% 6 Total amount of interest Rs. 34,104/-
7 Total amount including interest Rs. 1,64,647/- 8 Award amount released Rs. 1,64,647/-
9 Award amount kept in FDRs -----
10 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Entire amount is
to the claimant(s) directed to be
released.
11 Next date for compliance 02.07.2022
FORM IV-B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE OF KHIRABDHI TANIYA BEHERA • Date of accident : 02.10.2017 • Name of the injured : Khirabdhi Taniya Behera • Age of the injured: 7 Years • Occupation of the injured : -----
• Income of the injured : -----
• Nature of injury : Grievous
• Medical treatment
taken by the injured : Yes
MACT No. 500/17,
Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 31 of 33
• Disability: ----
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Rs. 8,536/-
Ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs. 30,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of Income -----
iv Loss of Study -------
v Any other loss which may require any special -----
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
2 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock ------- ii Pain and suffering & enjoyment of life Rs. 50,000/-
iii Loss of amenities -----
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects -----
v Loss of marriage prospects -----
vi Compensation on account of permanent -----
disability
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Future Loss of Income ----
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 68,536/-
5 INTEREST AWARDED 6% 6 Total amount of interest Rs. 17,864/-
MACT No. 500/17, Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 32 of 33 7 Total amount including interest Rs. 86,400/- 8 Award amount released Rs. 86,400/-
9 Award amount kept in FDRs -----
10 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Entire amount is
to the claimant(s) directed to be
released.
11 Next date for compliance 02.07.2022
ATUL Digitally signed
by ATUL KUMAR
Pronounced in the open court KUMAR GARG
Date: 2022.05.25
on 25th May, 2022 GARG 13:15:05 +0530
(ATUL KUMAR GARG)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
MACT No. 500/17,
Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar and ors. 25.05.2022 Page No. 33 of 33