Delhi District Court
Sumit Sehgal (I) ... vs Sudhir on 20 November, 2024
DLCT010094742020
Presented on : 21-12-2020
Registered on : 21-12-2020
Decided on : 20-11-2024
Duration : 03 Years 11 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA.
MACT NO. 664/20
SUMIT SEHGAL
S/o Sh.Harish Sehgal
R/o H.No. B-62, Gali No. 04,
Hardev Nagar, Jharoda Mazra,
Burari, Delhi-110084.
(Petitioner being mentally retired person
represented through his natural guardian/mother
Smt. Meenu Sehgal) .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH
S/o Sh. Jagdish Singh
R/o Village Salem Pur
P.S. Taryani,
Distt. Shivvihar Bihar.
Also at:
H.No. C-37, Amar Colony,
Nangloi, Delhi. (Driver)
MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No.Digitally
1/27
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20
12:23:48
+0530
2. M/S RAMKY ENVIO ENGINEERING LTD.
AT MCD Workshop,
Near Model Town Metro Station,
Phase-I, Mubarak Bagh,Delhi-110009. (Owner)
.....Respondents
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 08/12/19
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident N.A. Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident 29/01/21 Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not by the Insurance Company mentioned
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page Digitally No. 2/27 signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20 12:23:53 +0530 direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 20/11/24
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 09/10/24 directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the N.A. passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H.No. B-
Claimant(s). 62, Gali No.
04,
Hardev
Nagar,
Jharoda
Mazra,
Burari,
Delhi-
110084.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank N.A.
account(s) is near his place of residence?MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 3/27 Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.20 12:23:59 +0530
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the N.A. time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
1. This DAR was filed on 29/01/2021 by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the parties. The DAR is related to a motor vehicular accident dated 08/12/2019 in which one Sh. Sumit Sehgal S/o Sh. Harish Sehgal (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") sustained grievous injuries. Prior to filing of DAR, the present petition U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act was filed on 21/12/2020 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,00,000/- in respect of injuries sustained by petitioner in a road traffic accident which took place on 08/12/2019 at about 2.53 AM at a spot situated falling within the jurisdiction of PS Wazirabad. As per this petition, at the relevant date, time and place, the petitioner was going from Wazriabad to Hardev Nagar, Delhi on the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL- 5SAB-8194 and the said motorcycle was being driven by him with due care and caution, on his correct side, by following all traffic rules and regulations at normal speed and when he reached near Hardev Nagar, Red Light, Delhi riding on said motorcycle, all of a sudden a Truck bearing registration no. DL-1GB-8427 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver/ respondent no. 1 in a rash, negligent and reckless manner, by not MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 4/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.11.20 12:24:03 +0530 observing proper look out and at a break-neck speed came and hit the petitioner with great force.It is further stated that due to heavy impact the petitioner fell down on the road and received grievous injuries all over his body. It is further stated that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of R-1. It is further stated that the immediately after the accident the petitioner was brought to Sushruta Trauma Centre, by the police in a govt gypsy and the doctors of the said hospital attended, attended his injuries vide MLC No. 15008/19.As per petition, the petitioner was 32 years old at the time of accident and was doing private job and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and he has sustained permanent severe neuro-psycological disability more than 40% and 60% physical locomotor disability and total disability is 73% sustained in the above accident. An FIR no. 347/2019 PS Wazirabad U/s 279/338 IPC was registered, wherein it is stated that the accident took place on account of rashness and negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. R-1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the owner of the offending vehicle.
2. No written statement was filed by R-1
3. A written statement was filed by R-2 in which it denied the contents of the petitioner in toto.
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 08/05/2024 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 5/27Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20 12:24:08 +0530
1.Whether the petitioner Sh. Sumit Sehgal suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 08.12.2019 at about 02.53 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1GB-8427 driven by the respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and owned by the respondents no. 2 ?OPP.
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
5. The mother of petitioner examined herself as PW-1 in support of his claim. The mother of petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein she described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. She deposed that her son sustained grievous injuries at the relevant time. She further deposed that at the relevant time, he was 32 years of age and was doing a private job and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and due to injuries he has not been able to do his duties till date due to the said accident he has sustained permanent severe neuro-psycological disability more than 40% and 60% physical locomotor disability and total disability is 73%. She has relied upon the following documents viz:-
"Ex. PW1/1 is copy of Aadhar Card of PW-1; Ex.PW-1/2 is copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner;
Mark A is copy of discharge summary;
Ex. PW-1/3 is original treatment records alongwith discharge summaries;MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 6/27 Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.20 12:24:14 +0530 Ex. PW-1/4 is original medical bills; Ex.PW-1/5 (Colly) is complete set of DAR; Ex.PW-1/6 is disability certificate of petitioner'' 5.1 PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-
2. In her cross-examination she deposed that she is not an eye witness to the incident. She denied the suggestion that the accident happened due to the negligence of the injured himself. She further denied the suggestion that her son hit the stationary vehicle from behind. She further denied the suggestion that her son was not wearing a helmet at the time of accident.
5.2 PE was then closed.
6. Respondent did not lead any evidence in their defence.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties.
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings is as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 "Whether the petitioner Sh. Sumit Sehgal suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 08.12.2019 at about 02.53 AM MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 7/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20 12:24:24 +0530 involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1GB-8427 driven by the respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and owned by the respondents no. 2 ?OPP.''
9. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even moreer than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. As already discussed above, the mother of the petitioner examined herself as PW-1 in order to prove the factual averments regarding the occurrence of accident. PW-1 has clearly and categorically stated that at the relevant date, time and place, the petitioner was going from Wazriabad to Hardev Nagar, Delhi on the MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 8/27 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.20 12:24:28 +0530 motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-5SAB-8194 and the said motorcycle was being driven by him with due care and caution, on his correct side, by following all traffic rules and regulations at normal speed and when he reached near Hardev Nagar, Red Light, Delhi riding on said motorcycle, all of a sudden a Truck bearing registration no. DL-1GB-8427 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver/ respondent no. 1 in a rash, negligent and reckmore manner, by not observing proper look out and at a break-neck speed came and hit the petitioner with great force.It is further stated that due to heavy impact the petitioner fell down on the road and received grievous injuries all over his body. It is further stated that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of R-1. It is further stated that the immediately after the accident the petitioner was brought to Sushruta Trauma Centre, by the police in a govt gypsy and the doctors of the said hospital attended, attended his injuries vide MLC No. 15008/19.As per petition, the petitioner was 32 years old at the time of accident and was doing private job and was earning Rs.20,000/-
per month and his future prospects have suffered a set back due to the disability sustained by him in the above accident. She further deposed that he suffered he has sustained permanent severe neuro- psycological disability more than 40% and 60% physical locomotor disability and total disability is 73% and he has became unemployable permanently. Petitioner claims compensation on account of special pecuniary damage relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicine, transportation, diet, loss of earning during MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 9/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20 12:24:38 +0530 the period, he was injured, loss of earning during the period of treatment, loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, non-pecuniary damages, damages for pain suffering and trauma, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. PW-1 was subjected to a brief cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Respondents. However, she remained consistent and seems to have withstood the test of cross-examination. There is nothing on record which betrays any falsity or untruth in the oral testimony of PW-1. As such, it could be safely held that the oral testimony of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy.
11. The very fact that R-1 has already been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC & 3/181, 146/196, 56/192, 39/192 of MV Act in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW1 and the case of petitioner on this issue. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet, Site plan, Mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle, medical papers, Seizure Memos and Arrest Memo of R-1 also corroborate the testimony of PW1.
12. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 10/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20 12:24:43 +0530 law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time, R-1 was driving the offending vehicle a in rash and negligent manner in a high speed at the relevant time. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the petitioner, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross negligence and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
14. In view of the disability certificate, medical treatment documents placed on record by the petitioner, no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries on his person on account of negligence and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 11/27Digitally by PANKAJ signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20 12:24:46 +0530 ISSUE NO. 2 "Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
16. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
17. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. Pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary damages. The "pecuniary damages" or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The "non- pecuniary" or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non-pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 12/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.11.20 12:24:49 +0530 mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Further, in case of permanent disability, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. PagebyNo. 13/27 Digitally signed PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.11.20 12:24:55 +0530
18. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which can be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
19. The petitioner has placed on judicial file the treatment records and original medical bills vide Ex. PW-1/1(colly), Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly) and Ex.PW-1/4 (colly). As per the said documents, petitioner has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.29,483/-. In the absence of any contest to the said documents (placed on record by the petitioner), the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs.29,483/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
20. As per medical documents, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and also sustained he has sustained permanent severe neuro-psycological disability more than 40% and 60% physical locomotor disability and total disability is 73%. As per disability certificate Ex. PW1/6 issued by GB Pant Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Reaserch (GIPMER) and was found to have sustained permanent severe neuro-psycological disability more than 40% and 60% physical locomotor disability and total disability is 73%. The aforementioned certificate was issued in terms of the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated 01/10/2022. Accordingly, the aforementioned disability certificate could be read in MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. Digitally 14/27 signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20 12:25:00 +0530 evidence in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Union of India in Writ Petition (s) (Civil ) No (s). 534/2020 date of order 16/11/2021. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
(iii) Loss of income
21. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims that he he was 31 years of age and was doing a private job and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The medical records placed on record by petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained a grievous injuries which resulted into permanent severe neuro-psycological disability more than 40% and 60% physical locomotor disability and total disability is 73% The above documents are sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to the effect that he was unable to resume his vocation since the date of accident. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner has become unfit for work for rest of his life after the MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 15/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.20 12:25:04 +0530 accident and he could not have studied for about 06 months due to the injuries. In the absence of any material as to the monthly earnings of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to assume the monthly earnings of the petitioner as per the Minimum Wages payable to an Unskilled Person in Delhi as on the date of accident. Accordingly, the Minimum Wages admissible to Unskilled Person as on 08/12/2019 in Delhi the earnings was Rs.14,842/-. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.89,052/- (Rs.14,842/- X 6). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
22. Petitioner claimed in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he has become permanently disabled after the accident and could not perform his work by resuming his duties. Admittedly, petitioner has suffered permanent severe neuro-psycological disability more than 40% and 60% physical locomotor disability and total disability is 73%. As per the facts, the disability assessment report Ex.PW-1/6 the petitioner has suffered permanent intellectual disability pertaining to brain which is more than 40% ( Severe Neuro Psycological) and locomotion disability to the extent of 60%. The total disability is 73%. In these circumstances, it can be safely inferred that the petitioner who has suffered such a severe disability affecting his brain as well as locomotion would become in capable of doing any work in future. It is pertinent to mention that petitioner is even unable to appear before Tribunal for deposition and his his mother has deposed on his behalf the facts MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 16/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20 12:25:13 +0530 of the accident which shows that he is mentally and physically become incapable to walk or understand something. It has to be borne in mind that neurological disability do not get cured. Where the disability is big then the chances of its lessening become very meager, therefore, in these circumstances, I hold that petitioner has become disabled for carry out any work in future and accordingly, the functional disability of petitioner is taken as 100%. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs.14,842/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, we may look into the photocopy of petitioner's Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW1/2, as per the said document, the date of birth of petitioner was 23/09/1988. The date of accident is 08/12/2019. Going by the same, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident was around 31 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '16' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability. Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to his above injury and permanent locomotor disability comes to Rs.39,89,530/- (rounded off) (Rs.14,842/- X 140/100 X 100/100 X 12 X 16 ) and MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 17/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20 12:25:19 +0530 the same is awarded to him as compensation under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
23. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each under these heads.
(vi) Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement
24. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each under these heads.
(vii) Future Medical Treatment
25. It is common knowledge that such disability would make him dependent on continuous medical treatment and attendant which is expensive, therefore, keeping in view the need of the petitioner for medical treatment in future, he is awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards his future medical treatment.
Issue No.3/Relief
26. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs.49,58,065/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand and Sixty Five Only) (Rs.29,483- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.89,052/- + Rs.39,89,530/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 5,00,000/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 18/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.20 12:25:23 +0530 from the date of restoration of the petition i.e. 21/12/2020. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
27. Petitioner did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording his statement regarding financial needs and requirements.
27.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 250 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 250 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when she furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the place of his residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.15,11,592/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eleven Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Two Only) is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner.
MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 19/27Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20 12:25:27 +0530
28. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre- mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
29. Accordingly, R-1 being the driver and working for R-2 who was the owner of the vehicle, as such R-2 is vicariously liable for the negligent act committed by the R-1 during the course of his employment. Therefore, the liability to pay compensation as computed herein above would be borne by R-2 only. It is hereby ordered that R- 2 is solely liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. R-2 is directed to deposit the above awarded amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 20/27 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.20 12:25:33 +0530 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioner and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 8% per annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
30. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
31. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021.
MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 21/27Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20 12:25:37 +0530 Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
32. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up Digitally signed the same on 20.12.2024. PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.20 12:25:44 +0530 Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) on this 20.11.2024 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 08/12/2019
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Sumit Sehgal MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 22/27 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.20 12:25:47 +0530
3. Age of the injured : 31 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Job
5. Income of the injured : Rs.14,842/- as per minimum wages of an Unskilled Person prevailing in Delhi at the relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by injured : Differnt Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : Different Periods
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : YES MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 23/27 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.20 12:25:53 +0530
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss (I) Expenditure on treatment Rs.29,483/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 50,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL (vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL (vii) Loss of Income Rs.89,052/- MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 24/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.20 12:25:58 +0530
(viii) Any other loss which may Rs.5,00,000/-
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Rs.50,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future
life etc.
MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 25/27
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20
12:26:02 +0530
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
Permanent Severe Neuro-
(i) Percentage of disability Psycological disability more assessed and nature of than 40% and 60% physical disability as permanent or locomotor disability and temporary total disability is 73%
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A expectation of life span on account of disability 100%
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs.39,89,530/-
(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.49,58,065/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 8% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.15,53,527/-(rounded date of award off) MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 26/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20 12:26:06 +0530
17. Total amount including Rs.65,11,592/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs.15,11,592/-
19. Award amount kept in As per award FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of 20.12.2024 the award.
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 20.11.2024.
2. A separate file is ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 20.12.2024.Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.11.20 12:26:12 +0530 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/20/11/2024 MACT No. 664/20 Sumit Sehgal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 27/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.11.20 12:26:16 +0530