Delhi District Court
Jeenat Khatoon vs Karmabir on 1 July, 2025
Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 1 of62
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New No. 449900/16
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-000720-2014
Jeenat Khatoon
W/o Mohd. Ikramuddin
R/o House No. 28/66, Block-A,B,C,D,
Bhagya Vihar, near Rani Khera Road,
Madanpur Dabas, Delhi
........ Petitioner/claimant
Versus
1. Sh. Karambir
S/o Sh. Ram Niwas
R/o Village Kanjhawala,
Delhi-110081
....... Driver/R1
2. Sh. Jage Ram S/o Sh. Layak Ram
R/o RZ-54, Baba Haridas Enclave,
Near Jharoda Village, New Delhi
....... Registered Owner/R2
3. Sh. Amar Deep S/o Sh. Bijender Singh
R/o H.No. 377, Bazar Pana,
Village Karala, Delhi-110081
....... Insured/R3
4. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
A-1/3, Naniwala Bagh,
Anupam Bhawan, Azadpur, Delhi -110033
Policy No. 272601/31.2008/3950
Valid from 28.02.2008 to 27.02.2009
........Insurance Company/R4
5. Sh. Sanjay Mathur S/o Sh. Bijender Singh
R/o H.No. 377, Bazar Pana,
Village Karala, Delhi-110081
....... Co-owner/R5
..... Respondents
Page 1 of62
Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 2 of62
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.07.2014
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 29.05.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.07.2025
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT
REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs.
JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 19.06.2008
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 28.11.2014
investigating officer to the Claims
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 28.11.2014
investigating officer to the insurance
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Not available on
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan record
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Petition was filed
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Petition was filed
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant Petition was filed
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Petition was filed
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR Petition was filed
Page 2 of62
Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 3 of62
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Petition was filed
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or Petition was filed
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 28.11.2014
Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Ms. Neeru Garg,
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Ld. Counsel for
Company. insurance
company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Petition was filed
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company Petition was filed
admitted the liability? If so, whether the
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or Petition was filed
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to Legal offer not
the offer of the Insurance Company . filed
18. Date of the Award 01.07.2025
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 28.08.2018
directed to open saving bank account (s)
Page 3 of62
Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 4 of62
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 14.08.2018
produced the passbook of their saving
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Jeenat
claimant(s) and the address of the bank Khatoon, savings
with IFSC Code bank a/c
No.20832122001
562, Oriental
Bank of
Commerce,
Village Mundka,
Delhi,
IFSC :
ORBCO102083
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
Jaibir Singh.
Page 4 of62
Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 5 of62
JUDGMENT
1. The claim petition in the present case was filed under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act), on 15.07.2014, seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, in respect of injuries, sustained by the petitioner namely, Jeenat Khatoon, in a road traffic accident. Perusal of the record reveals that FIR No. 88/2008, PS Kanjhawala, was registered on 19.06.2008, for the commission of offence of causing simple hurt, by rash and negligent driving of a RTV bus, bearing registration number DL-1V-8493 (herein after referred as the offending vehicle), on a public road, punishable under Section 279/337 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC). Subsequently, charge sheet against Karambir S/o Ram Niwas (hereinafter referred as the driver/Respondent no.1/R1), was filed under section 279/337/338 IPC, before concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate, because as per the MLC of the petitioner, the injuries sustained by the injured/petitioner, were opined to be grievous in nature.
2. The brief facts of the case, as discernible from the claim petition and documents of the petitioner namely Jeenat Khatoon (hereinafter referred as petitioner/claimant), are that, on 19.06.2008, the petitioner was travelling for some work, along with other passengers, in the offending vehicle, Page 5 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 6 of62 and at about 7.30 a.m, in the morning, after seeing one bus of route no. 701, which was coming from behind, R1 started driving the offending vehicle, at a high speed and in a zigzag manner, in order to pick up the passengers. It was further averred that the passengers sitting in the offending vehicle, loudly told R1, to drive the offending vehicle safely but, R1 ignored the advice of the passengers and continue to drive the offending vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner and at about 7.35 am, when the offending vehicle reached in front of statue of Roop Chand Pradhan, after crossing Village Rani Khera, Karala Mundka Road, Delhi, the offending vehicle turned turtle, thereby causing injuries to the petitioner and six other passengers. It was further averred that thereafter, PCR van came there and all the injured have been shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as SGM Hospital), where the petitioner was medically examined, vide MLC No. 734/2008, as per which, she has sustained grievous injuries.
3. As per the petition, the offending vehicle was registered in the name of Jage Ram S/o Sh. Layak Ram (hereinafter referred as registered owner of the offending vehicle/respondent no.2/R2) and the same was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as insurance company/Respondent no. 4/R4), vide policy No. 272601/31.2008/3950, valid for the period 28.02.2008 to 27.02.2009, in the name of Amardeep S/o Sh. Bijender Page 6 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 7 of62 Singh. As per the petition, Amardeep and Sanjay Mathur, both S/o Sh. Bijender Singh, are the subsequent owner of the offending vehicle (hereinafter referred as subsequent co-owners/R3 and R5 respectively).
4. R1, R3 and R5 failed to contest the claim petition and they also failed to file any written statement. Thereafter, R1 and R3 were proceeded Ex-parte, vide order dated 20.10.2015 and R5 was proceeded Ex-parte, vide order dated 17.09.2024.
5. R2/registered owner has filed his written statement, wherein he raised the objection, that the petition is not maintainable, for want of non-joinder of necessary parties, as initially, the petitioner failed to implead the subsequent owners namely Sanjay Mathur and Amardeep, both S/o Sh. Bijender Singh. In his written statement, it was averred by R2, that he has sold out the offending vehicle to Sh. Sanjay Mathur R/o VPO Karala, New Delhi-110081, on 15.01.2008, against valid consideration of Rs. 2,70,000/-, by virtue of an agreement to sell and Form No. 29 and 30 and at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured in the name of Amardeep/real brother of Sanjay Mathur. It was further stated that as per the terms and conditions of agreement to sell, R2 shall not be liable for any challan, police case, court case, after the date of purchase of the said vehicle by R5. It was further stated that R2 had no concern with the offending vehicle, on the date Page 7 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 8 of62 of accident i.e. on 19.06.2008. It was further stated that Sanjay Mathur has only authorised the driver Karambir, to ply the said vehicle, on the day of accident.
6. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd./R4, has filed its written statement, wherein R4/insurance company, denied its liability, to pay any compensation to the petitioner, averring that there is breach of statutory terms and conditions of the insurance policy, by the insured because, as per the chargesheet filed by the IO, the driver Karambir was not having any driving license, at the time of accident, due to which, challan was filed against him, for the commission of offence U/s 3/181 and 5/180 M.V. Act. It was further stated that as per RC, permit and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle, the same was in the name of Jage Ram S/o Sh. Layak Ram but, the insurance policy is in the name of Sh. Amardeep S/o Bijender, who is having no insurable interest qua the offending vehcile. It was further stated that insured/R3 has not intimated the factum of accident and other necessary relevant details/information to R4, which was required to be submitted by him to the insurance company, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated 24.04.2018:-
Page 8 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 9 of62
1. Whether petitioner Jeenat Khatoon W/o Md. Ikramuddin suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 19.06.2008 at about 7.35 am, near Rani Khera road due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, i.e. RTV Bus bearing registration No. DL-IV-8493 whch was being so driven by its driver Sh. Karambir S/o Sh. Jage Ram, on the said date, time and place?
OPP
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
8. After framing of issues, opportunities were granted to all the parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading evidence in support of the same. In support of her case, the petitioner examined two witnesses.
9. The petitioner got herself examined as PW1, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A, and her deposition qua the accident in question and injuries sustained by her in the case accident, is reiteration of the facts mentioned by her, in her claim petition. In her evidence, PW1 has placed reliance on copy of her voter identity card as Ex. PW-1/1, her disability certificate as Ex. PW-1/2, certified copy of FIR as Ex. PW-1/3, certified copy of RC as Ex. PW-1/4, certified copy of permit as Ex. PW1/5, certified copy of fitness certificate as Ex. PW-1/6, certified copy of insurance policy as Ex. PW-1/7, certified copy of final report as Ex. PW-1/8, Page 9 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 10 of62 certified copy of site plan as Ex. PW-1/9, certified copy of arrest memo of R-1 as Ex. PW-1/10, certified copy of mechanical inspection report as Ex. PW-1/11, certified copy of photograph as Ex. PW-1/12, certified copy of her MLC as Ex. PW-1/13 and certified copy of kalandra as Ex. PW-1/14. She further deposed that at the time of accident, she was 46 years old, possessing good health, sound mind and robust physique. She further deposed that prior to the accident, besides being a house wife, she was doing tailoring job and earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month. She further deposed that she is suffering from permanent disability, due to the injuries sustained by her in the case accident. She further deposed that she and her family members also suffered mental pain, agony and economic loss, due to the accident. She further deposed that she was under medical treatment and it is still unknown, as to how much time and expenses, will be required for her recovery. She further deposed that she has been claiming a sum of Rs. 10 lacs, on account of grievous injuries, sustained by her, in the accident, mental pain, agony, loss of suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss on account of being confined to bed, loss of future prospects, in respect of disfigurement, due to the permanent disablement, medical expenses, conveyance charges, attendant charges, expenses incurred on equipment etc. and other general and special damages, as admissible under the law.
10. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance Page 10 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 11 of62 company/R4, wherein she deposed that she has sustained injuries, in the accident, which took place because of rash and negligent driving, by the driver of the offending vehicle, but, she does not remember the registration number of the offending vehicle. She further deposed that after the accident, she got admitted at Sanjay Gandhi hospital and she does not have any medical bills. She further deposed that at the time of accident, she was doing labour work and because of the accident, she is not able to work till date, because she is still under treatment, but, she is having no record of her treatment. She further deposed that she is not able to work properly, as her left hand is not functioning properly.
11. The petitioner further examined Dr. G.C. Verma, Specialist Orthopaedic, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Delhi, as PW2. He was a summoned witness. He deposed that on 24.07.2015 and 07.08.2015, he examined the patient/injured Ms. Jeenat Khatoon, and as per her examination, she has sustained 36% permanent disability, in relation to her left upper limb. He further deposed that the final disability report was prepared by the Board and the same was dispatched on 28.09.2015. He further deposed that the disability certificate is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/2, bearing his signatures at point 'A'.
12. PW2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company/R4, wherein he deposed that the disability is co-
Page 11 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 12 of62 related to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, during accident and mentioned in the MLC. He further deposed that the patient was duly examined and X-Ray was conducted on her, before issuing the disability certificate. He further deposed that the patient can do daily chorus but, she cannot lift her left hand over the head, unable to do combing and plaiting. He further deposed that the patient can close her buttons and eat food.
13. PW2 was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R2, wherein he deposed that the disability is co-related to the accident, but, the possibility of disability, arising out of any other subsequent injury, cannot be completely ruled out and can be answered by the treating doctor. During the course of his cross-examination, a court question was asked to the witness, as to what was her assessment of permanent disability, in terms of percentage, in relation to the whole body of the petitioner, to which he answered that the same cannot be medically answered, however, the same is generally taken as half by the courts/Tribunal, in relation to the whole body but, may vary, depending upon other factors. He further deposed that at the time of assessment, the structural as well as functional parameters are taken into account, for calculating the disability, in respect of a particular limb/organ. Another court question was asked to the witness, as to what is her assessment of functional disability of the injured, when compared to the permanent disability, as per the report, already exhibited above, to Page 12 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 13 of62 which he answered that the patient can do daily chores but, she cannot lift her left hand, over her head, unable to do combing and plaiting and the patient can close her buttons/and eat food.
14. In his defence, R2 got himself examined as R2W1, by way of affidavit Ex.R2W1/A. He deposed that he has sold the vehicle bearing registration no. DL1V-8493, to R5 Sh. Sanjay Mathur S/o Sh. Bijender Singh Mathur R/o H.no. 377, Bazar Pana, Village Karala, New Delhi-110081, for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-, on 15.01.2008 and in this regard, documents of sale were executed between him and Sh. Sanjay Mathur/R-5 S/o Sh. Bijender Singh R/o H.No.377, Bazar Pana, Village Kerala, Hew Delhi-110081. He further deposed that the said documents were executed in the presence of two witnesses, namely (1) Balbir Dagar R/o Haridas Enclave, Jhoroda Kalan, New Delhi-110072 and (2) Sh. Rajesh Kumar R/o Village Karala, New Delhi-110081. He further deposed that he has handed over the physical possession of the said vehicle to Shri Sanjay, on 15.01.2008 itself, in the presence of above said witnesses and since then, he has no concern with the sold vehicle. He further deposed that the documents regarding sale of the vehicle were executed between him and Shri Sanjay Mathur/R-5 on 15.01.2008, which includes (1) Agreement to Sell, (2) Form No.29 and 30, (3) Vehicle Delivery Receipt, (4) Cash Receipt. He further deposed that the original documents were taken by Shri Sanjay Page 13 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 14 of62 Mathur/R-5, and the photocopies of the documents were kept by him. He further deposed that he has also sent a notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC to R-5/Sanjay Mathur and to R-3/Amardeep, on 23.08.2018, through his counsel, by speed post, seeking production of original documents of sale of the offending vehicle, on court record, which was duly served on R-5/Sanjay Mathur and R-3/Amardeep but, they failed to produce the requisite documents on court record, till the date of his deposition. He further deposed that after sale of the said vehicle, he has sent an intimation letter, to the MLO, Transport Authority, 5/9, under Hill Road (Rajpura Road), Delhi-110054, vide letter dated 21.01.2008, through his counsel Sh. Vipin Panwar, Chamber No.K-58, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, whereby it was intimated that he has sold the vehicle bearing No. DL- IV-8493, to Shri Sanjay Mathur/R-5, on 15.01.2008 and the said letter was sent through registered A.D. Post on 22.01.2008, along with Form No.29 and 30, which was duly received by the office of State Transport Authority, Delhi. He further deposed that after intimation to the office of Transport Authority, he had also sent a notice dated 12.02.2008, to Sh. Sanjay Mathur/R-5, which was sent through registered post on 12.02.2008, through his counsel Sh. Vipin Panwar, requiring him to get the said vehicle transferred in his name. He further deposed that on the date of alleged accident i.e. 19.06.2008, he was not the owner of the said vehicle. He further deposed that the police had sent a notice U/s 133 M.V.Act, to him, which was duly replied Page 14 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 15 of62 by him, to the effect that he has sold the said vehicle to Shri Sanjay Mathur/R-5 on 15.01.2008 and he has supplied the photocopies of Sale Purchase documents, to the police. He further deposed that the fact, that he has sold the vehicle, prior to the date of accident is also clear from the copy of insurance policy, as per which, the said vehicle was insured in the name of Sh.Amardeep/R-3 and said Shri Amardeep/R-3 is real brother of Shri Sanjay Mathur/R-5. He further deposed that the police has also filed Kalandra U/s 146/196, 5/180 MV Act, against Shri Sanjay Mathur/R-5. He further deposed that on the date of accident, the driver was the employee of Shri Sanjay Mathur/R-5 or Amardeep/R-3. He further deposed that he had no control over the said vehicle and on R1/the alleged driver, on the date of accident. In his evidence, he has placed reliance on notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC, dated 23.08.2018, as Ex. R2W1/1, notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC, dated 23.08.2018, as Ex. R2W1/2, postal receipts as Ex. R2W1/3 and Ex. R2W1/4, delivery report sent to Sanjay as Ex. R2W1/5, original refusal letter as Ex. R2W1/7, agreement to sell as Mark-A, Form 29 as Mark-B, Form no. 30 as Mark-C, vehicle delivery receipt as Mark-D, cash report as Mark-E, letter dated 21.01.2018 as Ex. R2W1/12, original postal receipts as Ex. R2W1/13, AD card as Ex. R2W1/14, spare copy of notice dated 12.02.2008 as Ex.R2W1/15, original postal receipt dated 12.02.2008, as Ex R2W1/16, reply of notice U/s 133 of M. V. Act, already exhibited as Ex.R4W1/C, copy of insurance policy already Page 15 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 16 of62 exhibited as Ex.PW-1/7 and Kalandra already exhibited as Ex. R4W1/B. In his evidence, R2 mentioned about a document as Ex. R2W1/6, but, he de-exhibited the same, at the time of recording of his evidence. On 28.02.2020, during the course of his examination in chief, R2W1 clarified that Ex.R2W1/12 was recorded as intimation letter dated 21.01.2018, whereas the same is intimation letter dated 21.01.2008.
15. R2W1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R4, wherein he admitted that Registration Certificate of Vehicle bearing No. DL 01V 8493 (RTV), is in his name (Jage Ram S/o Late Shri Layak Ram). He further admitted that notice U/s 133 of M.V.Act, was sent by IO and received by him and he replied to the said notice, by saying that he has sold the vehicle. He admitted that he has not changed his name before Regional Transport Authority. He voluntarily deposed he has sent a letter to RTO, for changing his name in RC on 22.01.2008. He further deposed that he has not enquired about the transfer of RC, however, he received AD Card from the authority. He denied the suggestion, that his counsel prepared letter/notice dated 22.02.2008 and sent to the authority on 22.01.2008. He voluntarily deposed that the date 22.02.2008 has been written inadvertently and it should be 22.01.2008. He denied the suggestion, that he has not sent any letter to the Licencing Authority, for change of his name in the RC. He further denied the suggestion, that Page 16 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 17 of62 he has not sent any letter for change of his name in Licencing Authority. He denied the suggestion, that even he has not submitted any form No. 29-30, to the Licencing Authority. He further denied the suggestion, that he has not sold the vehicle to Shri Sanjay Mathur, before the date of accident. He further denied the suggestion, that he has filed false and fabricated documents on record i.e. letters, postal receipts and Forms No.29 and 30. He further denied the suggestion, that the aforesaid procedure was followed, in order to avoid the liability of the driver, as the driver did not possess any driving licence. He further denied the suggestion, that in order to avoid his liability, he has fabricated the abovesaid documents.
16. R2 further examined Sh. Balbir Dagar S/o Late Sh. Raghu Nath as R2W2, who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R2W2/A. He deposed that he has witnessed the signature of seller/R2 and purchaser/R5 Sanjay Mathur on 15.01.2008 and both the parties put their signatures in his presence on the documents i.e. (a) agreement to sell (b) Form no. 29 and 30 (c) vehicle delivery receipt (d) cash receipt already Ex.R2W1/8, Ex.R2W1/9 (Colly), Ex.R2W1/10 and Ex.R2W1/11 respectively. He further deposed that after witnessing the signatures of both the parties, he also put his signatures, at the same time on the documents i.e. (a) agreement to sell (b) vehicle delivery receipt (c) cash receipt. He further deposed that on the same day i.e. 15.01.2008, the vehicle was delivered to R5/Sanjay Page 17 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 18 of62 Mathur by R2/Jage Ram, in his presence. He further deposed that it was agreed between the parties, that the purchaser /R5, will get the R.C. of the vehicle transferred in his name, within the stipulated period. In his evidence, he has placed reliance upon documents already marked as Mark-A to Mark-E, in evidence of R2W1. R2W2 was not cross-examined by any of the respondents, as he got expired, after recording of his examination in chief on 23.09.2019.
17. R2 further examined Sh. Gajendra Kumar as R2W3, who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R2W3/A. He deposed that he is a witness in Sale Purchase of the offending vehicle, bearing No. DL1V-8493 on 15.01.2008. He further deposed that he has witnessed the signatures of Purchaser/R-5/Sanjay Mathur and Seller/R-2 Jage Ram, on 15.01.2008 and both the parties had put their signatures, in his presence, on the documents viz - (a) Agreement to Sale
(b) Form No. 29 & Form No. 30 (c) Vehicle Delivery Receipt (d) Cash Receipt. He further deposed that he also witnessed the signatures of R2W2 Late Shri Balbir Singh, who also witnessed the signatures of R-2/Seller and R-5/Purchaser, before putting his signatures, on the above said documents. He further deposed that on the same day i.e. 15.01.2008, the vehicle was delivered for consideration to R-5/Sanjay, by R-2/Jage Ram, in his presence. He further deposed that it was also agreed between the parties, that the purchaser/R-5 will get the R.C. of the vehicle transferred in Page 18 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 19 of62 his name, as early as possible.
18. R2W3 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R4, wherein he deposed that he does not know the name of the person, in whose name, the offending vehicle is registered. He admitted that Ex. PW1/4 is the registration certificate of the offending vehicle, bearing No. DL1V-8493, in which name of the owner is Sh. Jage Ram. He further admitted that he has no document to show that he has already sold the offending vehicle. He voluntarily deposed that his father has also supplied the original documents, for the purpose of transferring the same to the purchaser, in his presence. He denied the suggestion, that he was not the witness of sale and purchase of the offending vehicle. He deposed that his father had already sent Ex.R2W1/11, to the Licencing Officer, for intimating him, regarding the selling of the offending vehicle. He denied the suggestion, that he has filed false and fabricated documents or that he was deposing falsely.
19. R2 further examined SI Shri Om Prakash as R2W4. He was a summoned witness. He deposed that he was posted at PS Kanjhawala, when the case accident had occurred and at that time, he was posted as head constable in PS Kanjhawala. He further deposed that he has issued notice U/s 133 of M.V. Act to Sh. Jage Ram, which is R2 in the present matter and the same is already exhibited as Ex. R4W1/C and after receiving the notice, Jage Ram appeared Page 19 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 20 of62 and made the statement, that he had already sold the said vehicle in January 2008, to one Sh. Sanjay Mathur S/o Sh. Bijender Singh Mathur, R/o Village Karala, Delhi. He further deposed that thereafter, he issued another notice in the name of Sh. Sanjay Mathur, on 10.01.2010, which is already exhibited as Ex.R4W1/D and his brother namely Monu Mathur appeared and made statement in his own hand, upon the said notice, that his brother Sanjay purchased the said offending vehicle from Sh. Jageram, but after 26.01.2009, he disappeared and have no clue about his whereabouts and after the said statement, he signed the said statement. He further deposed that thereafter, he registered a kalandra U/s 146/196 and 5/180 of M.V Act, against Sh. Sanjay Mathur. He further deposed that as per his investigation, the offending vehicle was purchased by Sanjay Mathur and he was the possessory owner of the said offending vehicle, at the time of case accident.
20. R2W4 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R4, wherein he admitted that he had issued notice U/s 133 of M.V. Act, which is already exhibited as Ex. R4W1/C, to the registered owner, namely, Sh. Jageram, in the present matter. He further deposed that the registration certificate of the offending vehicle was in the name of Sh. Jageram, at the time of accident.
21. In its defence, R4 got examined Sh. Anuj Nayyar, its Page 20 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 21 of62 Assistant Manager as R4W1, who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R4W1/A, wherein he deposed that he is Assistant Manager in legal department of R4 and well conversant with the facts of the case. He further deposed that the vehicle bearing no DL-01V-8493(RTV), was insured with R4/insurance company, vide policy no. 272601/31/2008/3950, with effect from 28.02.2008 to midnight of 27.02.2009, in the name of Sh. Amar Deep on certain terms and conditions. He further deposed that on 19.06.2008, at the time of alleged incident, the respondent no. 1, under the instructions of respondent no. 2, was plying the said vehicle, without any valid and effective driving License and the IO filed charge-sheet under section 279/338 IPC and 3/181 M.V.Act, against the respondent no. 1/driver. He further deposed that by doing so, the respondent no. 1 & 2 violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. He further deposed that on 19.06.2008, the insurance policy was in the name of Sh. Amar Deep, but insured was having no insurable interest in the policy. He further deposed that registration certificate, permit and fitness of the vehicle, are in the name of Sh. Jage Ram and in reply of notice U/s 133 Cr.P.C, he submitted that he has sold the vehicle to Sh. Sanjay Mathur, in the month of January, 2008. He further deposed that IO also issued notice U/S 133 Cr.PC to Sh. Sanjay Mathur and in reply to this notice, his brother Monu Mathur, informed the IO, that his brother Sanjay Mathur is missing since 26.01.2009. He Page 21 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 22 of62 further deposed that R4/Insurance Company, issued notice under order XII Rule 8 CPC, to the driver, registered owner and insured of the above said vehicle, through advocate Ms. Neeru Garg, by way of speed-post, to produce the copy of valid and effective driving License of respondent no. 1/driver of vehicle no. DL-01V-8493 (RTV) and the notice was duly served upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. He further deposed that the owner, driver and insured failed to supply the copy of valid and effective driving license and even failed to reply to the notice. He further deposed that as per terms and conditions of the policy, R4/insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. In his evidence, R4W1 has placed reliance upon the documents viz- attested copy of insurance policy as Ex.R4W1/A, copy of kalandra U/s 146/196 and 5/180 M.V. Act as Ex.R4W1/B, certified copy of two notices U/s 133 Cr.P.C. as Ex.R4W1/C & D, certified copy of registration certificate, permit and Fitness (Colly) as Ex.R4W1/E and F, notice U/s XII Rule 8 of CPC as Ex.R4W1/G, Postal Receipt in respect of notice as Ex.R4W1/H to J and Service report of postal department as Ex.R4W1/K to L.
22. R4W1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2, wherein he deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the case. He further deposed that he has filed the affidavit in his official capacity. He further deposed that the documents filed along with his affidavit Page 22 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 23 of62 have been provided by the Insurance Company, after verification, on investigation. He admitted that Ex.R4W1/B is not certified copy of the Kalandra. He further admitted that report of Transport Department is also not original one. He voluntarily deposed that the same is a verified copy, which was verified from State Transport Authority, as can be depicted from the stamp and vehicle number at point 'A'. He further deposed that he can bring the original of the same. During the course of his cross-examination, R4W1 has filed certified copy of the kalandra qua FIR No. 88/08 and has prayed that copy of the same be de-exhibited and certified copy be marked as Ex.R4W1/B and the said request has been allowed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal. When he was further cross-examined, he deposed that they have not investigated that respondent no.1 was the driver of respondent no.2. He further deposed that he does not know, about the salary paid by R2 to R1. He further deposed that he cannot say, as to when he was kept on employment. He further deposed that he has not produced any document, to show employee and employer relation between R2 and R1. He denied the suggestion, that R1 was not the driver of R2. He admitted that on production of the document of ownership, they insured the vehicle in the name of the owner. He further deposed that he does not know, whether any document was produced at the time of issuing insurance policy. He further deposed that insurance is a contract between the insurer and the insured, subject to terms and conditions of contract. He admitted that Page 23 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 24 of62 Insurance Policy Ex. PW1/7, was issued by their company, with regard to the offending vehicle i.e. DL 1V 8493, in the name of Mr. Amardeep S/o Shri Bijender Singh. He further deposed that he cannot say that the vehicle in whose name it is insured, always have any insurable interest in the said policy. He denied the suggestion, that the person in whose name the insurance is issued, always have insurable interest. He further deposed that they do not know at the time of issuance of policy, as who was Jage Ram. He further deposed that they have not sent any policy to Shri Jage Ram, as they do not know, who was Jage Ram, at the time of issuing the insurance policy. He further deposed that there was no contract of insurance Company with R2 i.e. Jage Ram.
23. R2 further examined Sh. Amardeep Mathur S/o Sh.
Bijender Singh as R2W4. He was a summoned witness. He deposed that his brother Sanjay Mathur was also known as Monu Mathur, who is Respondent No-5, in the present case. He further deposed that notice U/s 133 MV Act, already Ex.R4W1/D, was received by his brother Sanjay Mathur, in the name of Monu Mathur and writing on notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act, is of his brother and he signed the notice as Monu Mathur. He further deposed that his brother had written on the notice, that his brother Sanjay Mathur had purchased the RTV DL-1V-8493, from Sh. Jage Ram. He further deposed that he had got the insurance of the said vehicle, in his name, that is, Amardeep Mathur and he is respondent Page 24 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 25 of62 no-3 in the present case. He further deposed that now Sanjay Mathur is absconding since 19-03-2009, as per his knowledge, as per DD entry No. 14A, dated 18-03-2009 and the same is now Ex.R2W4/1. He further deposed that his brother Sanjay Mathur had purchased the vehicle from Sh. Jage Ram, however, the RC of the offending vehicle is not in the name of his brother Sanjay Mathur and insurance of the said vehicle is in his name. He further deposed that RC of the said offending vehicle is still in the name of Sh. Jage Ram. He voluntarily deposed that he does not know, if his brother had purchased the vehicle or had taken the same on contract (theke par li thi). He further deposed that he does not know, as to whether his brother had got the RC transferred in his name or not. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was in possession of his brother Sanjay Mathur, at the time of accident. The cross-examination of R2W4 was though deferred at the request of the petitioner, however, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has given statement on 29.05.2025, to the effect, that he does not wish to cross- examine R2W4.
24. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the records.
25. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings of this Tribunal, are reproduced herein below:
Page 25 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 26 of62 ISSUE No. 1 Whether petitioner Jeenat Khatoon W/o Md. Ikramuddin suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 19.06.2008, at about 7.35 am, near Rani Khera road, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, i.e. RTV Bus bearing registration No. DL- IV-8493 which was being so driven by its driver Sh. Karambir S/o Sh. Jage Ram, on the said date, time and place? OPP
26. Perusal of issue no. 1 reveals that parentage of the driver i.e. Karambir was wrongly mentioned as Karambir S/o Sh. Jage Ram, whereas his correct parentage is Karambir S/o Sh. Ram Niwas. Therefore, name of driver/R1 be read as Karambir S/o Sh. Ram Niwas, in issue no.1.
27. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of probabilities, was upon the petitioner/claimant. For deciding the present issue, the testimony of PW1 Jeenat Khatoon is relevant, being an eyewitness as well as the injured/petitioner. PW1 deposed that on 19.06.2008, she was travelling for some work, along with other passengers, in the offending vehicle, and at about 7.30 a.m, in the morning, after seeing one bus of route no. 701, which was coming from behind, R1 started driving the offending vehicle, at a high speed and in a zigzag manner, in order to pick up the passengers. PW1 further deposed that the passengers sitting in the offending vehicle, loudly told R1, to drive the offending vehicle safely but, R1 ignored the advice of the passengers and continue to drive the offending vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner and at about 7.35 Page 26 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 27 of62 am, when the offending vehicle reached in front of statue of Roop Chand Pradhan, after crossing Village Rani Khera, Karala Mundka Road, Delhi, the offending vehicle turned turtle, thereby causing injuries to PW1 and six other passengers. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, PCR van came there and all the injured have been shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi, where PW1 was medically examined, vide MLC No. 734/2008, as per which, she has sustained grievous injuries, in the case accident.
28. PW1 was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R4 but, R4 failed to impeach the credibility of PW1 and failed to elicit any admissions from the testimony of PW1, so as to prove that the alleged accident had not taken place, with the offending vehicle or due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. Even otherwise, since R1 failed to file any written statement and also failed to cross-examine PW1, despite being granted opportunity, therefore, he deemed to have admitted, that there was rashness and negligence, on his part, in causing the accident in question. R1 further failed to lead any evidence, to prove that there was no negligence on his part or that he was falsely implicated in this case by the IO, in connivance with the petitioner. Further, R1 also failed to prove that he has ever approached to any higher authority, with respect to his false implication, in the Page 27 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 28 of62 present case. Consequently, in view of the unrebutted testimony of PW1, it stands duly proved, that the accident, in which the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries, as evident from her treatment papers, has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
29. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for R2, has raised the contention that the petitioner has filed the present case, after six years of accident and there is every likelihood, that she had suffered injuries later on, after the accident in question and the said fact is clear from her deposition, wherein she deposed that she does not have any medical bills and medical record of any kind. However, R2 failed to lead any evidence, to substantiate his contentions. Per contra, by the evidence of PW2 Dr. G.C. Verma, the petitioner has proved that the disability sustained by her, as evident from her disability certificate Ex.PW1/2, is co- related to the injuries, sustained by her in the case accident, as evident from her MLC. Though, PW2 also deposed that the possibility of disability, arising out of any other subsequent injury, cannot be completely ruled out and can be answered by the treating doctor. But, R2 failed to examine the treating doctor, to prove that the permanent disability, as sustained by the petitioner, arose due to injuries sustained by her, later on i.e after the accident in question. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, the contention raised by Ld. Counsel for R2 is hereby discarded.
Page 28 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 29 of62 Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE No. 2Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
30. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/claimant is entitled to compensation, in respect of pain and suffering, medical expenses, special diet charges, conveyance charges and other expenditure incurred by her, on account of injuries, sustained by her, in the above-mentioned road traffic accident. This Tribunal shall now examine the entire evidence, including the documents of the petitioner/claimant, for the purpose of arriving at a finding, about the quantum of compensation, to which the petitioner/claimant is entitled.
31. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
Page 29 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 30 of62 MEDICAL EXPENSES
32. The petitioner has claimed compensation, on account of expenses, allegedly incurred by her, on her medical treatment, but, the petitioner failed to lead any evidence, qua the expenditure, incurred by her, on her medical treatment. The petitioner further failed to place on record any medical bills, qua the treatment taken by her, on account of injuries, sustained by her, in the case accident. Therefore, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation, under the head of medical expenses.
SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE
33. The petitioner had sought compensation, on account of her expenditure, on special diet and conveyance, however, she has neither specified the exact amount, spent by her on special diet and conveyance, nor placed on record, any prescription slip of a doctor, medical practitioner or dietitian, issued in her name (the name of the petitioner), advising her, to take any form of special diet or any bill of special diet, such as high protein diet or liquid diet or nutritional supplements, for speedy recovery of the injuries, sustained by her, in the case accident.
34. Further, she has also not placed on record, any bill of conveyance, such as bills raised by any private taxi service Page 30 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 31 of62 or ambulance service, availed by her, for travelling to the hospital, from her residence or vice versa, during her treatment period. In such circumstances, the requirement of special diet and conveyance, if any faced by the petitioner, during her treatment period, has to be ascertained, in accordance with the nature of injuries, sustained by the petitioner.
35. In this context, a perusal of court record reveals that as per the MLC of the petitioner, as filed with the petition Ex.PW1/13, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries, due to the accident in question. The petitioner has further placed reliance on her disability certificate, as Ex. PW1/2.
36. Besides this, the petitioner has examined Dr. G.C. Verma, as PW2, who proved on record disability certificate of the petitioner, bearing No. 367, dated 28.09.2015, as Ex.PW1/2, as per which, the petitioner has sustained permanent physical disability, to the tune of 36%, in relation to her left upper limb, with diagnosis of post traumatic stiffness of left shoulder. During the course of cross-examination of PW2, a court question was asked to PW2, as to what is his assessment of permanent disability, in terms of percentage, in relation to the whole body, to which he answered that the same cannot be medically answered, however, the same is generally taken as half by the courts/Tribunal, in relation to the whole body but, the same may vary, depending upon other factors. He further Page 31 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 32 of62 deposed that at the time of assessment, the structural as well as functional parameters are taken into account, for calculating the disability, in respect of a particular limb/organ. Another court question was asked to PW2, as to what is his assessment of functional disability of the injured, when compared to the permanent disability, as per their report, already exhibited as Ex. PW1/2, to which he answered that the patient can do daily chores but, she cannot lift her left hand over her head, unable to do combing and plaiting and the patient can close her buttons/and eat food. Accordingly, in view of the nature of injuries, sustained by the petitioner, coupled with 36% physical permanent disability, in relation to her left upper limb, the period of treatment cum recuperation, in case of the petitioner, is ascertained to be about 06 months. Consequently, this Tribunal is of the opinion, that during her treatment cum recuperation period, the petitioner must have incurred expenses, in procuring special diet, for speedy recovery, as well as in travelling from her residence to hospital and vice versa. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/-, is granted under this head to the petitioner, which includes Rs. 20,000/- each, towards special diet and conveyance respectively.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
37. The petitioner had sought compensation, on account of attendant charges, however she has not specified the exact Page 32 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 33 of62 amount, spent by her on attendant charges. The petitioner has failed to place on record, any receipt, as to any payment being made by her, to any agency, from which, she had hired any attendant or any document, to show credit of any amount, to any attendant or agency. She had also failed to examine any attendant, allegedly hired by her, during the said period. However, taking into consideration the fact, that the petitioner has duly proved, that as a result of the accident, she has sustained grievous injuries, with 36% permanent disability, in relation to her left upper limb, and as her treatment cum recuperation period, has already been assessed to be about 06 months, therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion, that the petitioner must have felt compelled to avail services of a medical attendant or a family member, as an attendant, for self care activities, such as, bathing, dressing up, using the rest room, combing her hairs, eating etc., during her treatment cum recuperation period of 06 months. Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to award a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/-, as compensation to the petitioner, under this head, towards attendant charges.
COMPENSATION DUE TO PERMANENT DISABILITY/ LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY DUE TO DISABILITY
38. The petitioner has claimed compensation, on account of loss of income, due to the permanent disability, sustained by the petitioner, in the case accident.
Page 33 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 34 of62
39. Perusal of the court record reveals that as per disability certificate, bearing No. 367 dated 28.09.2015, issued by Board of Doctors of Dr. BSA Hospital Ex.PW1/2, the petitioner has sustained 36% permanent disability, in relation to her left upper limb, with diagnosis of post traumatic stiffness of left shoulder.
40. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its order passed in case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO 842/2003, date of order 09.03.2018 has inter alia held that same percentage of permanent disability may have different impact upon earning capacity of different individuals, based upon the nature of their work. Relevant extract of observations made in para no.6.4 and 6.5 of the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the above named case is reproduced hereinbelow:
"6.4 The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, education and other factors. 6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps:
(i) The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The claimant is totally disabled, earning any kind of livelihood, or Page 34 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 35 of62
b) Whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
c) Whether he was prevented all restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."
41. In the light of above cited observations, made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the decided case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors (supra), it can be safely concluded that same percentage of permanent disability can have different impact on functional capacity and earning potential of an individual depending upon the nature of his job. Therefore, the functional disability has to be ascertained, taking into consideration its impact on the work of the claimant.
42. In the present matter, in the claim petition as well as in her evidence affidavit, Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner/PW1 mentioned that at the time of accident, besides being a housewife, she was doing tailoring job and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month but, during the course of her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for R4, PW1 deposed that she was doing labour work. Thus, there is contradictory version of PW1, as to her occupation. The petitioner further failed to place on record, any document, so as to prove her source of livelihood or to prove her income as Rs. 8,000/- per month, as alleged. Therefore, she can at the most be taken as a homemaker.
Page 35 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 36 of62
43. The petitioner has examined PW2, who during the course of his evidence before this Tribunal, deposed that the petitioner has sustained 36% permanent disability, in relation to her left upper limb, with diagnosis of post traumatic stiffness of her left shoulder. During the course of cross-examination of PW2, a court question was asked to PW2, as to what is his assessment of permanent disability, in terms of percentage, in relation to the whole body, to which he answered that the same cannot be medically answered, however, the same is generally taken as half by the courts/Tribunal, in relation to the whole body but, the same may vary depending upon other factors. He further deposed that at the time of assessment, the structural as well as functional parameters are taken into account, for calculating the disability, in respect of a particular limb/organ. Another court question was asked to PW2, as to what is his assessment of functional disability of the injured, when compared to the permanent disability, as per their report already exhibited as Ex. PW1/2, to which he answered that the patient can do daily chores but, she cannot lift her left hand over her head, unable to do combing and plaiting and the patient can close her buttons/and eat food. But, as the petitioner was unable to prove on record, that she was doing tailoring work or any kind of labour work, therefore, deposition of PW2, as to impact of permanent disability, as sustained by the petitioner, on her working capacity to do tailoring job or labour work, cannot be taken into consideration and Page 36 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 37 of62 considering her as a homemaker, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to assess the functional disability of the petitioner and the effect of permanent disability, on her actual earning capacity as 18%.
44. The petitioner Jeenat Khatoon has not proved on record, either her educational qualification or her income. But, even if she is considered as a homemaker, then also, in case titled Kirti & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2021) 2 SCC 166, 3-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, while discussing and highlighting the services rendered by housewife/homemaker and assessment of her notional income as per minimum wages prescribed for the State observed as under:
xxxxx " Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the Page 37 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 38 of62 facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally. The granting of future prospects,on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation"
xxxxx
45. In the matter titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Manmeet Singh & Ors.", reported at 2012 ACJ 721 (Delhi), it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the services rendered by a housewife can not be counted; cooking, washing, ironing clothes and stitching clothes (in some cases) for the husband and children, teaching and guiding children, working as a nurse whenever the husband and child/children are sick, are some of the major activities of a housewife. She has no fixed hours of work; she is always in attendance to take care of each and every need of the whole family at the cost of her personal comfort and health. The services rendered by a housewife may differ from case to case considering her qualification, financial strata and social status of the family to which she belongs.
46. In the present matter, the petitioner has failed to prove on record, her educational qualification and perusal of the record reveals that she herself deposed that she was doing tailoring work/labour work, therefore, keeping in view the financial strata and social status of the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the considered view, that the petitioner, at Page 38 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 39 of62 best is entitled for minimum wages, of an unskilled person.
47. As per Aadhar card of the petitioner, at the time of accident, the petitioner was residing at E-70, Jhuggi J.J. Colony, 100 Futa Road, Bawana, North West Delhi, Delhi-110039. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to minimum wages, payable to an unskilled person, in the area of NCT of Delhi, as on the date of occurrence of the case accident. The minimum wages of an unskilled person, in the area of NCT of Delhi was Rs.3,633/- per month, as on the date of accident. Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just to consider the income of the petitioner as Rs.3,633/- per month, on the date of occurrence of the case accident i.e. on 19.06.2008.
Addition of Future Prospects.
48. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner, to addition of future prospects in his monthly income, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:-.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of Page 39 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 40 of62 actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied)
49. Reference is also made to the case of Sanjay Oberoi vs Manoj Bageriya, MAC APPEAL 829/2011 decided on 03.11.2017 & Prem Chand vs Shamim Husain & Ors, MAC.APP. 1003/2017 decided on October 11,2018 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
Page 40 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 41 of62
50. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Oberoi (Supra), after referring to the judgment of the Constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017 granted element of future prospects of increase in the income, in a case where the income of the petitioner was notionally assessed on the basis of minimum wages with functional disability @ 10%.
51. As per Aadhar Card of the petitioner, her date of birth is 01.01.1957 and the accident in question has occurred on 19.06.2008, therefore the age of the injured, at the time of accident was 51 years, 05 months and 18 days. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioner would be entitled to an addition of 10% of the established income, as she was between the age of 50 years to 60 years at the time of her accident. The monthly income of the petitioner is thus calculated as Rs. 3,633/- + 10% of 3,633/-, which comes to Rs.3,633/-+ 363.3/- = Rs.3,996.3/-.
52. The age of the petitioner at the time of accident was about 51 years 05 months and 18 days. In the said circumstances, the relevant multiplier has to be calculated as per the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 Page 41 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 42 of62 ACJ 1298. As per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma case by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, multiplier of 11 is to be applied for computing compensation payable to a victim of Road Traffic Accident aged between 51 years to 55 years. The compensation is accordingly assessed towards loss of earning capacity at Rs.94,952.088/- [(Rs.3,996.3/- per month x 12 months x 11 (age multiplier) x 18/100 (functional disability)].
LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE.
53. In the present matter, the petitioner has duly proved, that as a result of the accident, she has sustained grievous injuries, with 36% permanent disability, in relation to her left upper limb and as her treatment cum recuperation period has already been assessed to be about 06 months accordingly, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner must have suffered loss of enjoyment of life and its amenities, due to permanent disability, sustained by her, which is 36%, on account of having met with the case accident and therefore, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to grant a total sum of Rs.30,000/-, as compensation to the petitioner, under the said head of loss of amenities of life.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
54. The petitioner has claimed compensation, on account of trauma suffered by her, due to the injuries sustained by her, in the case accident. In the present matter, the petitioner has Page 42 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 43 of62 duly proved, that as a result of the accident, she has sustained grievous injuries, with 36% permanent disability, in relation to her left upper limb, with diagnosis of post traumatic stiffness of left shoulder and as her treatment cum recuperation period has already been assessed to be about 06 months accordingly, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have suffered acute pain and mental agony, during her treatment and on account permanent disability suffered by her. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/-, is granted in favour of the petitioner, under the said head.
LOSS OF INCOME
55. Petitioner in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, has deposed that prior to the accident, she was doing tailoring job/labour work but, she failed to prove either her income or vocation. Further, in paragraph No. 47, her monthly income has already been assessed as Rs. 3,633/- and since the treatment-cum-recuperation period of the petitioner has already been determined to be 06 months. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 21,798/- (Rs.3,633/- x 06 months), is awarded in favour of the petitioner, as compensation, under the head of loss of income.
56. Accordingly, the over all compensation, which is to be awarded to the petitioner, comes to Rs. 2,46,751/-, which is tabulated as below Page 43 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 44 of62 Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-
2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 40,000/-
3. Attendant Charges Rs. 20,000/-
4. Medical Expenses Nil
5. Loss of income Rs. 21,798/-
6. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 30,000/-
7. Loss of future earning capacity Rs. 94,952.088/-
Total Rs. 2,46,750.088/-
Rounded off to Rs. 2,46,751/-
(Rupees Two Lacs Forty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty One only)
57. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) of the back the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case also this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f 15.07.2014, till realisation of the compensation amount.
58. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
Page 44 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 45 of62 LIABILITY
59. In the case in hand, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd/R4 has raised the defence, that as per the chargesheet, R1 was not holding any valid and effective driving license and as per chargesheet, IO has issued notice U/s 133 M.V. Act, to R5/Sanjay Mathur and in reply to the said notice, his brother Monu Mathur informed the IO, that his brother Sanjay Mathur is missing since 26.01.2009 and a Kalandra U/s 146/196 and 5/180 M.V. Act, was also prepared against him. It was further argued that on 19.06.2008, the insurance policy was issued in the name of R3/Amardeep but, insured was having no insurable interest in the policy. It was further argued that RC, permit and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle, are in the name of Jage Ram/R2 and in reply to the notice u/s 133 M.V. Act, he submitted that he has sold the vehicle to Sanjay Mathur, in the month of January 2008. It was also argued that R4 also issued notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC, to driver/R1, registered owner/R2 and insured/R3, which was duly served upon them but, they failed to supply copy of valid and effective driving license of R1 and even failed to reply to the said notice and thus, there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and they are not liable to pay any compensation, to the petitioner.
60. Per contra, R2 has raised the defence, that R2 is not liable to pay any compensation, because R2 has sold the offending vehicle to R5 on 15.01.2008 and at the time of Page 45 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 46 of62 accident i.e on 19.06.2008, the offending vehicle was in possession and control of R5 and R3, as possessory owners and the driver of the offending vehicle/R1, was also employed by them. It was argued that R4, was also intimated about the sale of the offending vehicle, which fact is clear from the insurance policy of the offending vehicle, which is in the name of R3, at the time of accident. It was further argued that after sale of the offending vehicle on 15.01.2008, an intimation letter was also sent by him, to RTO, Rajpura Road, Delhi, within the stipulated period of 14 days, to comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 50 of M.V. Act and notice was also sent to R5, on 12.02.2008, to get the offending vehicle transferred in his name.
61. R2, who got himself examined as R2W1, reiterated the above said defence, in his evidence affidavit Ex. R2W1/A and has placed reliance on Agreement to sell, Form No. 29 & 30, vehicle delivery receipt, cash receipt, allegedly executed in presence of two witnesses, namely, Balbir Singh Dagar and Sh. Rajesh Kumar as Mark-A, Mark-B, Mark-C Mark-D, and Mark-E respectively, by deposing that the original of the same were handed over by him, to Sanjay Mathur. R2W1 further deposed that he has sent intimation letter to MLO, Transport Authority, 5/9 Under Hill Road, Rajpura Road, Delhi, vide letter dated 21.01.2008 Ex.R2W1/12, and he has placed reliance on postal receipts as Ex.R2W1/13, its AD card as Page 46 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 47 of62 Ex.R2W1/14. He deposed that he has sent registered AD post on 22.01.2008, along with Form No. 29 and 30, wherein it was intimated that he has sold the offending vehicle to Sh. Sanjay Mathur/R5, on 15.01.2008. Although, Sh. Balbir Dagar has been examined by R2 as R2W2, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.R2W2/A, wherein he proved on record, that he was the attesting witness, qua agreement to sell and Form 29 and 30. However, unfortunately, R2W2 got expired, during the course of trial. Since, R2 proved on record, that at the time of sale of vehicle, he has handed over the original thereof to R5/Sanjay Mathur, therefore, it is for R5, to raise objection qua the same but, R5 failed to enter appearance. But, his brother/R3, entered in the witness box and admitted purchase of the offending vehicle, by his brother/R5 from Jage Ram/R2. Interestingly, in order to deny its liability, though R4 was raising the objection, that R2 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle, as per R.C on record but, R4/insurance company itself issued the insurance policy, qua the offending vehicle, in the name of R3, covering the period of accident.
62. Further, R4 has examined its Assistant Manager Legal, as R4W1, who though deposed that R3 has no insurable interest, qua the offending vehicle and that R1 was employed by R2, at the time of accident but, during the course of his cross examination, by Ld. Counsel for R2, R4W1 deposed that they have not investigated that respondent no.1 was the driver of respondent no.2. He Page 47 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 48 of62 further deposed that he does not know, about the salary paid by R2 to R1. He further deposed that he cannot say, as to when he was kept on employment. He further deposed that he has not produced any document, to show employee and employer relation between R2 and R1. He denied the suggestion, that R1 was not the driver of R2. He admitted that on production of the documents of ownership, they insured the vehicle, in the name of the owner. He further deposed that he does not know, whether any document was produced, at the time of issuing insurance policy. He further deposed that insurance is a contract between the insurer and the insured, subject to terms and conditions of contract. He admitted that Insurance Policy Ex. PW1/7, was issued by their company, with regard to the offending vehicle i.e. DL 1V 8493, in the name of Mr. Amardeep S/o Shri Bijender Singh. He further deposed that he cannot say, that the vehicle, in whose name it is insured, always have any insurable interest, in the said policy. He denied the suggestion, that the person in whose name the insurance is issued, always have insurable interest. He further deposed that they do not know at the time of issuance of policy, as who was Jage Ram. He further deposed that they have not sent any policy to Shri Jage Ram, as they do not know, who was Jage Ram, at the time of issuing the insurance policy. He further deposed that there was no contract of insurance Company with R2 i.e. Jage Ram.
63. Thus, by the deposition of R4W1, it stands duly proved that Page 48 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 49 of62 the insurance Company/R4, has issued the insurance policy, only after verifying the factum of transfer of ownership, qua the offending vehicle to R5 and that is why, the insurance policy was issued by R4, in favour of R3 and that is the reason, R4 was neither aware of the name of Jage Ram/R2, nor copy of insurance policy was sent to R3 by R4.
64. Perusal of the record further reveals that IO has served a notice u/s 133 M.V. Act Ex.R2W1/C to R2, and in reply to the said notice, R2 informed the IO, that he had sold the offending vehicle to R5, on 15.01.2008 and proof of sale and purchase of documents were with him. Perusal of the record further reveals that a notice u/s 133 M.V. Act Ex.R2W1/D, has also been served upon R5, on which, one Mr. Monu Mathur/allegedly brother of R5, disclosed that his brother purchased the RTV DL1V-8493 from Jageram but, his brother is missing since 26.01.2009 and his whereabouts are not known to him. During the course of his evidence, R2W4 Amardeep Mathur, deposed that his brother had written on the notice, that his brother Sanjay Mathur had purchased RTV DL01V-8493, from Sh. Jage Ram. He further deposed that he had got the insurance of the said vehicle, issued in his name i.e. Amardeep Mathur and he is R3 in the present case. He further deposed that now Sanjay Mathur is absconding since 19.03.2009, as per DD Entry Ex.R2W4/1. He further deposed that his brother Sanjay Mathur, had purchased the vehicle from Sh.
Page 49 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 50 of62 Jageram, however, RC of the offending vehicle, is not in the name of his brother Sanjay Mathur and insurance of the said vehicle is in his name. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that the offending vehicle has been sold by R2 to R5 Sanjay Mathur on 15.01.2008 and the sale documents viz- agreement to sell, Form No. 29 and 30, vehicle delivery receipt and cash receipts, were executed by him on the same day and as gesture of sale of the offending vehicle, even R3 Amardeep Mathur had got the vehicle insured in his name, for the period 28.02.2008 to 27.02.2009, in view of internal arrangement between R3 and R5. By the testimony of R2W4, It also stands proved that he as well as his brother Sanjay Mathur/R3, was having possession and control over the offending vehicle, at the time of accident.
65. In view of the foregoing discussion, it has been established on record that R1 Karambir was driving the offending vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner, without holding any valid and effective driving license and that is why kalandra U/s 146/196 and 5/180 M.V. Act was prepared against driver/R1 and R5 and chargesheet was filed against the driver/R1 Karambir U/s 3/181 and 5/180 M.V. Act. Further, R4 proved on record, that it has issued notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC, calling upon the driver, registered owner and possessory owner of the offending vehicle, to supply the copy of driving license of driver/R1 Karambir, but they failed to produce any valid and effective driving license of Page 50 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 51 of62 R1.
66. It has been further established on record, that the offending vehicle was in possession and control of R3 Amardeep Mathur and R5 Sanjay Mathur. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled as "Godavari Finance Company vs. Degala Satyanarayanamma & Ors.", (2008) 5 SCC 107, a question was raised, as to whether the financier, in whose name the vehicle stood registered, or the owner, were to be held liable to pay the compensation arising out of an accident. It is in that context that the Supreme Court observed thus:-
"12. Section 2 of the Act provides for interpretation of various terms enumerated therein. It starts with the phrase "Unless the context otherwise requires". The definition of "owner" is a comprehensive one. The interpretation clause itself states that the vehicle which is the subject matter of a hire-purchase agreement, the person in possession of vehicle under that agreement shall be the owner. Thus, the name of financer in the registration certificate would not be decisive for determination as to who was the owner of the vehicle. We are not unmindful of the fact that ordinarily the person in whose name the registration certificate stands should be presumed to be the owner but such a presumption can be drawn only in the absence of any other material brought on record or unless the context otherwise requires."
xxx
15. An application for payment of compensation is filed before the Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Act for adjudicating upon the claim for compensation in respect of accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Use of the motor vehicle is a sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compensation. Ordinarily if driver of the vehicle would use the same, he remains in possession or control Page 51 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 52 of62 thereof. Owner of the vehicle, although may not have anything to do with the use of vehicle at the time of the accident, actually he may be held to be constructively liable as the employer of the driver. What is, therefore, essential for passing an award is to find out the liabilities of the persons who are involved in the use of the vehicle or the persons who are vicariously liable. The insurance company becomes a necessary party to such claims as in the event the owner of the vehicle is found to be liable, it would have to reimburse the owner inasmuch as a vehicle is compulsorily insurable so far as a third party is concerned, as contemplated under Section 147 thereof. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the possession or control of a vehicle plays a vital role."
(emphasis supplied)
67. In the present matter, also, it has been established on record, that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was in power and control of R3/Amardeep and R5 Sanjay Mathur and that is why, R3 got the offending vehicle insured in his name. The contention of R4/insurance company that the insured/R3 has no insurable interest in the present matter, does not have merits, as they have received the premium for insurance of the offending vehicle, from R3, for indemnifying the insured/R3, in case of any mis-happening, with the offending vehicle, during the insurance period, only after verifying the documents of the offending vehicle and if any accident took place, with the offending vehicle, then R4/insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured and also to seek recovery from the insured, in case breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by R3.
Page 52 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 53 of62
68. Ld. counsel for the insurance company/R4 has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Naveen Kumar vs Vijay Kumar, [2018] 2 SCR 572 wherein it has been held that the registered owner shall be liable to pay the compensation when there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for R2 has relied upon the full bench judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Anand Sarup Sharma vs P.P. Khurana and Ors., AIR 1989 Delhi 88 and another judgment titled as Sidharth Khetrapal vs Mohd. Hanif & Ors. decided on 14.09.2017 in MAC. APP. 524/2008.
69. The judgment of Naveen Kumar vs Vijay Kumar (Supra) is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the present case. The full bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Anand Sarup Sharma vs P.P. Khurana (Supra) has observed that :
"23. A decree or award, in our opinion, can never be made against a person who has sold the vehicle prior to the date of accident. A driver is always liable if the death or bodily injury is caused due to his rash and negligent driving. This is also the rule that an employer, though guilty of no fault of himself, is liable for damage done by a fault or negligence of his servant acting in the course of his employment on the principle that an owner is victoriously liable for the rash and negligent act of his servant. The buyer cannot by any stretch of arguments be termed as the servant of the seller. The seller, therefore, cannot be held liable for the tortious act of the purchaser or his servant, committed during the course of this (purchaser's) employment. The purchaser, in view of the provisions of section 94, no doubt, is barred by statute from using the vehicle without getting it insured. The consequence of non-
Page 53 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 54 of62 compliance of the statutory obligation can lead to two consequences, namely, (i) criminal liability and (ii) tortious liability. However, the seller in no case would be liable either under tort or under the statute. This non-compliance by the buyer would not make the seller liable for damages. The fact that he continues to be the registered owner would not make any difference so far as his liability to pay compensation under tort or statute is concerned."
(emphasis supplied)
70. The another judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sidharth Khetrapal vs Mohd. Hanif & Ors. (Supra) has observed that :
"25. The registration of the vehicle in the name of an individual is of import. It generally proceeds on the presumption that the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is the person responsible for its use. This attracts to him the vicarious liability. But then, it being a rebuttable presumption, it cannot be a thumb rule that in all cases the registered owner must be held accountable. If the registered owner can show, by credible evidence, like in the present case, that he had no control over the vehicle or that the vehicle was with someone else, over whom, or use of the vehicle by whom, he had no control, he cannot be held accountable, the liability in such case shifting on to the person who had the control over the vehicle".
71. Thus, in view of the aforesaid proposition of law, it can be safely concluded that since the offending vehicle was proved to be in power, possession and control of R3/Amardeep Mathur and R5 Sanjay Mathur, at the time of accident and the driver/R1 Karambir had been appointed and authorised by them, to drive the offending vehicle, at the time of accident, who did not have any valid and effective driving license, at the time of accident therefore, Page 54 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 55 of62 there is breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by R3/Amardeep Mathur and R5 Sanjay Mathur, as they only have authorized driver/R1 Karambir, to drive the offending vehicle, who was not having any valid and effective driving license. However, as the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with R4, at the time of accident, therefore, firstly R4 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner and then to seek its recovery from R1, R3 and R5, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to R4.
72. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd./R4 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 2,46,751/- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R4 to the petitioner and her advocate and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgment with the Nazir as per rules. R4 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for Page 55 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 56 of62 disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
73. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP was recorded on 28.08.2018 regarding her savings bank A/c with endorsement of MACT claims SB A/c, no loan, cheque book & ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding the financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment passed in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
74. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and clause 32 of MCTAP, regarding protection of the award amount, it is hereby directed that on realization, entire amount of Rs. 2,46,751/- alongwith upto date interest be released to her in her MACT Claims SB A/c no. 20832122001562, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Mundka, Nangloi, Delhi, as per rules, that is, the branch near her place of residence (as mentioned in statement Page 56 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 57 of62 recorded under clause 29 MCTAP).
RELIEF
75. As discussed above, Oriental Insurance Company Limited/R4 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 2,46,751/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition, that is, 15.07.2014 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R4 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R4 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
76. R4 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
77. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 4 for compliance within the granted time.
78. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
79. In terms of directions contained in the order dated Page 57 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 58 of62 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606) {other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
80. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
81. In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioner was also recorded on 13.04.2023. The record would show that the relevant documents including copy of aadhar card, PAN card, copy of bank pass Page 58 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 59 of62 book and form 15G of the petitioner have already been supplied to the Ld counsel for insurance co. on 28.08.2018 itself.
82. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per Digitally signed rules. SHAMA by SHAMA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.07.01 16:47:20 +0530 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) on 1st July, 2025 P.O. MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi Page 59 of62 Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 60 of62 FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 19.06.2008
2. Name of injured: Jeenat Khatoon
3. Age of the injured: About 51 years, 05 months and 18 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: Self Employed-Home Maker
5. Income of the injured: Rs. 3,633/- per month.
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: About 06 months.
8. Period of hospitalization: As per record.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: Yes.
36% Permanent Physical Disability
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Nil
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.20,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.20,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs.94,952.088/-
Page 60 of62
Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 61 of62
(vi) Loss of income Rs.21,798/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require N/A
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and N/A
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.30,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration N/A
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 36% Permanent Physical nature of disability as permanent or Disability temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 18% capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X Rs.94,952.088/-[(Rs.
% Earning capacity X Multiplier) 3,996.3/- per month x12
Page 61 of62
Jeenat Khatoon vs Karambir and Ors. Page 62 of62
months x 11(age multiplier)
x 18/100 (functional
disability)].
(v) Future Medical Expenses N/A
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 2,46,750.088/- (rounded
off to Rs. 2,46,751/-)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.50%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.2,02,901.29 award
17. Total amount including interest Rs.4,49,652.29/- (rounded off to Rs. 4,49,653/-)
18. Award amount released Rs. 4,49,653/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs N/A
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) clause 29 of MCTAP (Clause29)
21. Next date for compliance of the 01.08.2025 award. (Clause 31) Digitally signed SHAMA by SHAMA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.07.01 16:47:12 +0530 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) on 1st July, 2025 P.O. MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi Page 62 of62