Delhi District Court
Ms. Karishma Goyal vs Sh. Pinku Singh on 21 December, 2022
DLCT010029952015
Presented on : 07-10-2015
Registered on : 07-10-2015
Decided on : 21-12-2022
Duration : 07 Years 02 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI PRESIDED OVER BY
SH. LOVLEEN
IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 57185/16 (For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Ms.
Karishma Goyal) :
MS. KARISHMA GOYAL
D/o Sh. Ravi Goyal
R/o H.No. 16/337-338, Joshi Road,
Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. SH. PINKU SINGH
S/o Sh. Gopal Singh
R/o Vill Ami Nagar Sarai,
Distt. Baghpat, UP. (Driver).
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 1/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors
MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed
MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21
MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:20:21 +0530
2. SH. NAVEEN KUMAR CHAUDHARY
R/o 1619-A, Uldhan Pur, Dwarka Puri,
Panchsheel Park, Delhi-110032.(Owner).
3. SH. MANISH SHARMA
S/o Sh. Madan Lal Sharma,
R/o S-2, Awashiya Colony, Shalimar Garden,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP.
Also at
B-43, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi-110092. (Insured).
4. M/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITD
A-74, Main Road, Kanti Nagar, Delhi-110051 (Insurer)
.......Respondents.
AND DLCT010030042015 Presented on : 07-10-2015 Registered on : 07-10-2015 Decided on : 21-12-2022 Duration : 07 Years 02 Months MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 2/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Date:
LOVLEEN MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:20:30 +0530 IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 57192/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Neeta Goyal) :
SMT. NEETA GOYAL W/o Sh. Ravi Goyal R/o H.No. 16/337-338, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. .......Petitioner.
Vs.
1. SH. PINKU SINGH S/o Sh. Gopal Singh R/o Vill Ami Nagar Sarai, Distt. Baghpat, UP. (Driver).
2. SH. NAVEEN KUMAR CHAUDHARY R/o 1619-A, Uldhan Pur, Dwarka Puri, Panchsheel Park, Delhi-110032.(Owner).
3. SH. MANISH SHARMA S/o Sh. Madan Lal Sharma, R/o S-2, Awashiya Colony, Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP.
Also at B-43, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi-110092. (Insured).
4. M/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITD A-74, Main Road, Kanti Nagar, Delhi-110051 (Insurer) .......Respondents.
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 3/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:20:37 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors AND DLCT010088132016 Presented on : 19-07-2016 Registered on : 20-07-2016 Decided on : 21-12-2022 Duration : 06 Years 05 Months IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 58074/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh.
Sanjay Gupta) :
SH. SANJAY GUPTA S/o Sh. Rajeshwar Prasad Gupta R/o H.No. 17, New Colony, Near Filmistan, Model Basti, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006. .......Petitioner.
Vs.
1. SH. PINKU SINGH S/o Sh. Gopal Singh R/o Vill Ami Nagar Sarai, Distt. Baghpat, UP. (Driver).MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 4/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedMACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:20:46 +0530
2. SH. NAVEEN KUMAR CHAUDHARY R/o 1619-A, Uldhan Pur, Dwarka Puri, Panchsheel Park, Delhi-110032.(Owner).
3. SH. MANISH SHARMA S/o Sh. Madan Lal Sharma, R/o S-2, Awashiya Colony, Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP.
Also at B-43, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi-110092. (Insured).
4. M/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITD A-74, Main Road, Kanti Nagar, Delhi-110051 (Insurer) .......Respondents.
AND
DLCT010088132016
Presented on : 19-07-2016
Registered on : 20-07-2016
Decided on : 21-12-2022
Duration : 06 Years 05 Months
IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 56981/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Meenu Garg) :
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 5/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors.Digitally signed
MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:20:54 +0530 SMT. MEENU GARG W/o Sh. Amit Garg R/o H.No. 17, New Model Basti, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110005.
. .......Petitioner.
Vs.
1. SH. PINKU SINGH S/o Sh. Gopal Singh R/o Vill Ami Nagar Sarai, Distt. Baghpat, UP. (Driver).
2. SH. NAVEEN KUMAR CHAUDHARY R/o 1619-A, Uldhan Pur, Dwarka Puri, Panchsheel Park, Delhi-110032.(Owner).
3. SH. MANISH SHARMA S/o Sh. Madan Lal Sharma, R/o S-2, Awashiya Colony, Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP.MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 6/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:21:15 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Also at B-43, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi-110092. (Insured).
4. M/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITD A-74, Main Road, Kanti Nagar, Delhi-110051 (Insurer) .......Respondents.
AND DLCT010029962015 Presented on : 07-10-2015 Registered on : 07-10-2015 Decided on : 22-12-2022 Duration : 07 Years 02 Months IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 57186/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh.
Amit Garg) :
SH. AMIT GARG S/o Sh. Vinod Garg R/o H.No. 17, New Model Basti, Rani Jhansi Road,New Delhi-110005. .......Petitioner.
Vs.
1. SH. PINKU SINGH S/o Sh. Gopal Singh R/o Vill Ami Nagar Sarai, MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 7/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors.Digitally signed
MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:21:03 +0530 Distt. Baghpat, UP. (Driver).
2. SH. NAVEEN KUMAR CHAUDHARY R/o 1619-A, Uldhan Pur, Dwarka Puri, Panchsheel Park, Delhi-110032.(Owner).
3. SH. MANISH SHARMA S/o Sh. Madan Lal Sharma, R/o S-2, Awashiya Colony, Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP.
Also at B-43, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi-110092. (Insured).
4. M/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITD A-74, Main Road, Kanti Nagar, Delhi-110051 (Insurer) .......Respondents.
AND
DLCT010088152016
Presented on : 19-07-2016
Registered on : 20-07-2016
Decided on : 21-12-2022
Duration : 06 Years 05 Months
IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 58073/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Pushpa Gupta) :
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 8/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:21:24 +0530 SMT. PUSHPA GUPTA W/o Sh. Sanjay Gupta R/o H.No. 17, New Colony, Near Filmistan, Model Basti, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006. .......Petitioner.
Vs.
1. SH. PINKU SINGH S/o Sh. Gopal Singh R/o Vill Ami Nagar Sarai, Distt. Baghpat, UP. (Driver).
2. SH. NAVEEN KUMAR CHAUDHARY R/o 1619-A, Uldhan Pur, Dwarka Puri, Panchsheel Park, Delhi-110032.(Owner).
3. SH. MANISH SHARMA S/o Sh. Madan Lal Sharma, R/o S-2, Awashiya Colony, Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP.
Also at B-43, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi-110092. (Insured).
4. M/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITD A-74, Main Road, Kanti Nagar, Delhi-110051 (Insurer) .......Respondents.
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 9/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Date:
LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:21:31 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 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 27/10/2014
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Report N.A. (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident NA Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not mentioned by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance No 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/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 10/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:21:39 +0530
14. Date of the award 21/12/2022
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 16/11/2022 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 Petitioner Meenu Garg in passbook of their savings bank account near the case no. 57185/16 on place of their residence along with the 14/12/2022 endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
Petitioner Amit Garg in case no. 57186/16 on 14/12/2022 Petitioner Karishma Goyal, Petitioner Neeta Goyal, Petitioner Sanjay Gupta and Petitioner Pushpa Gupta did not produce the passbooks.
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 11/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:21:46 +0530
18. Permanent Residential Address of the Address of petitioner Claimant(s). Karishma Goyal in case no. 57185/16 :
H.No. 16/337-338, Joshi Road,Karol Bagh, Delhi-
110005.
Address of petitioner Neeta Goyal in case no.
57192/16 :
H.No. 16/337-338, Joshi Road,Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
Address of petitioner Sanjay Gupta in case no.
58074/16 :
H.No. 17, New Colony, Near Filmistan, Model Basti,Sadar Bazar, Delhi-
110006.
Address of petitioner Meenu Garg in case no.
56981/16 :
H.No. 17, New Model Basti,Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110005.MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 12/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:21:52 +0530 Address of petitioner Amit Garg in case no.
57186/16 :
H.No. 17, New Model Basti,Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110005.
Address of petitioner Pushpa Gupta in case no.
58073/16 :
H.No. 17, New Colony, Near Filmistan, Model Basti, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-
110006.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) Yes (Only Petitioner is near his place of residence? Meenu Garg and Amit Garg)
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at Only Petitioner Meenu the time of passing of the award to ascertain Garg and Amit Garg his/their financial condition?MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 13/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors.
Digitally MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors signed by MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 16:21:58 +0530 COMMON AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION
1. Vide this common judgment this Tribunal shall decide the above mentioned six connected petitions filed U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act. These petitions were consolidated together vide orders dated 23.09.2022.
These petitions have been filed by Ms. Karishma Goyal, Smt. Neeta Goyal, Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Smt. Meenu Garg, Sh. Amit Garg and Smt. Pushpa Gupta respectively (hereinafter referred to as petitioner K.G, petitioner N.G., petitioner S.G., petitioner M.G., petitioner A.G., and petitioner P.G. respectively) seeking compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by them in a motor vehicular accident dated 27/10/2014. As per petitioners, on 27/10/2014 they were travelling to Shri Khatu Shyam Mandir, Sikar, Rajasthan from Delhi for a religious pilgrimage in a bus bearing registration no. DL-1PC-5236 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle"). Petitioners further state that despite their protests the driver of the said bus was driving the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner at the relevant time. At about 02.10 A.M., when the offending vehicle reached a turn named Mehrauli Morh, Reingas, Sikar, Rajasthan ( falling within the jurisdiction of PS Reingas, District Sikar, Rajasthan), the driver of offending vehicle failed to slow down, leading to loss of his control over the offending vehicle, which firstly collided with an electricity pole and thereafter overturned. All the petitioners sustained injuries. Petitioner K.G. was immediately removed to Civil Hospital, Reingas, Rajasthan, thereafter to MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 14/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:22:05 +0530 Fortis Escorts, Jaipur, Rajasthan. She remained hospitalized in B.L.K.Super Specialty Hospital, Pusa Road, Delhi, from 29.10.2014 to 01.11.2014. Petitioner N.G. was immediately removed to Civil Hospital, Reingas, Rajasthan, thereafter to Fortis Escorts, Jaipur, Rajasthan. She also took treatment from B.L.K. Super Specialty Hospital, Pusa Road, Delhi. Petitioner S.G. was immediately removed to Civil Hospital, Reingas, Rajasthan, thereafter to Fortis Escorts, Jaipur, Rajasthan. He also took treatment from Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. Petitioner M.G. was immediately removed to Civil Hospital, Reingas, Rajasthan, thereafter to Fortis Escorts, Jaipur, Rajasthan. She remained hospitalized in Paschimi Hospital, New Multan Nagar, Delhi from 27.10.2014 to 04.11.2014. She also took treatment from Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi. Petitioner A.G. was immediately removed to Fortis Escorts, Jaipur, Rajasthan, where he remained admitted from 27.10.2014 to 30.10.2014. He also took treatment from Paschimi Hospital, New Multan Nagar, Delhi. Petitioner P.G. was immediately removed to Fortis Escorts, Jaipur, Rajasthan. She remained hospitalized in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi from 27.10.2014 to 31.10.2014. She also took treatment from Tripathi Hospital and Trauma Centre, Ghaziabad, U.P. As per petitioners, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of R-1. An FIR no. 447/14 U/s 279/337 IPC was registered in respect of the above accident at PS Reingas, Sikar, Rajasthan at the instance of one Sh. Pratap Singh S/o Sh.Keshar Singh Rajpoot.
1.1 As per petitioner K.G. she was studying in BCA, 1 st Year and she MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 15/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors.Digitally signed
MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:22:11 +0530 used to give tuitions to the children of Class 1st to Class 8th and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month from this source. She claims to have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- towards her medical treatment, special diet and conveyance etc. Petitioner K.G. seeks compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 Lakhs in respect of injuries sustained by her. As per petitioner N.G. she used to run a boutique ( stitching & knitting work) and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month (approx). She claims to have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- towards her medical treatment, special diet and conveyance etc. Petitioner N.G. seeks compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 Lakhs in respect of injuries sustained by her. As per petitioner S.G. he was working as a Branch Manager with M/s Wuerth India Pvt. Ltd and was drawing a salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month. He claims to have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- towards his medical treatment, special diet and conveyance etc. Petitioner S.G. seeks compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 Lakhs in respect of injuries sustained by him. As per petitioner M.G. she was giving tuitions to the children of class 5 th to 10th and used to earn Rs. 40,000/- per month. She claims to have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- towards her medical treatment, special diet and conveyance etc. Petitioner M.G. seeks compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Lakhs in respect of injuries sustained by her. As per petitioner A.G., he was running a Readymade Garments business and was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. He claims to have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- towards his medical treatment, special diet and conveyance etc. Petitioner A.G. seeks compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Lakhs in respect of injuries sustained by MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 16/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:22:18 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 him. As per petitioner P.G., she was giving tuitions to the children of class 1st to class 5th and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month. She claims to have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards her medical treatment, special diet and conveyance etc. Petitioner P.G. seeks compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Lakhs in respect of injuries sustained by her.
2. As per petition, R-1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the registered owner of the offending vehicle, R-3 is the person who purchased the insurance policy ( from R-4) covering the offending vehicle as on the date of accident and R-4 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Notice of this petition was issued to all the respondents.
PEADINGS IN MACT NO. 57185/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Ms. Karishma Goyal) :
3. No written statement was filed by R-1 and R-2 despite availing sufficient opportunity and accordingly their defence was struck off vide order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
4. A Written statement was filed by R-3 who claims that no accident as alleged in the petition ever took place and that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated by the petitioner. R-3 further claims that MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 17/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:22:24 +0530 at the relevant time the offending vehicle was hit in the rear by some unknown vehicle, due to which R-1 lost control ( of the offending vehicle) and the offending vehicle overturned. R-3 denies that R-1 was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. R-3 further claims that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R-4 and since R-1 was holding a valid driving license, therefore, liability, if any, is to be borne by R-4/ Insurance Company.
5. A written statement was filed by the R-4/ Insurance company claiming that R-1 was not holding a valid driving license and the offending vehicle was being plied without any valid permit and therefore petition is liable to be dismissed. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself. Rest of averments of the petition have been simply denied.
PEADINGS IN MACT NO. 57192/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Neeta Goyal) :
6. No written statement was filed by R-1 and R-2 despite availing sufficient opportunity and accordingly their defence was struck off vide order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
7. A Written statement was filed by R-3 who claims that no accident as alleged in the petition ever took place and that the offending MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 18/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally signed MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date: 2022.12.21 16:22:30 +0530 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors vehicle, has been falsely implicated by the petitioner. R-3 further claims that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was hit in the rear by some unknown vehicle, due to which R-1 lost control ( of the offending vehicle) and the offending vehicle overturned. R-3 denies that R-1 was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. R-3 further claims that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R-4 and since R-1 was holding a valid driving license, therefore, liability, if any, is to be borne by R-4/ Insurance Company.
8. A written statement was filed by the R-4/ Insurance company claiming that R-1 was not holding a valid driving license and the offending vehicle was being plied without any valid permit and therefore petition is liable to be dismissed. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself. Rest of averments of the petition have been simply denied. PEADINGS IN MACT NO. 58074/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh. Sanjay Gupta)
9. No written statement was filed by R-1, R-2 and R-3 despite availing sufficient opportunity and accordingly they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
10. A written statement was filed by the R-4/ Insurance company MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 19/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. signed by MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:22:37 +0530 claiming that R-1 was not holding a valid driving license and the offending vehicle was being plied without any valid permit and therefore petition is liable to be dismissed. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself. Rest of averments of the petition have been simply denied. PEADINGS IN MACT NO. 56981/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Meenu Garg) :
11. No written statement was filed by R-1 and R-2 despite availing sufficient opportunity and accordingly their defence was struck off vide order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
12. A Written statement was filed by R-3 who claims that no accident as alleged in the petition ever took place and that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated by the petitioner. R-3 further claims that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was hit in the rear by some unknown vehicle, due to which R-1 lost control ( of the offending vehicle) and the offending vehicle overturned. R-3 denies that R-1 was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. R-3 further claims that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R-4 and since R-1 was holding a valid driving license, therefore, liability, if any, is to be borne by R-4/ Insurance Company.
13. A written statement was filed by the R-4/ Insurance company MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 20/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:22:42 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 claiming that R-1 was not holding a valid driving license and the offending vehicle was being plied without any valid permit and therefore petition is liable to be dismissed. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself. Rest of averments of the petition have been simply denied. PEADINGS IN MACT NO. 57186/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh. Amit Garg)
14. No written statement was filed by R-1 and R-2 despite availing sufficient opportunity and accordingly their defence was struck off vide order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
15. A Written statement was filed by R-3 who claims that no accident as alleged in the petition ever took place and that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated by the petitioner. R-3 further claims that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was hit in the rear by some unknown vehicle, due to which R-1 lost control ( of the offending vehicle) and the offending vehicle overturned. R-3 denies that R-1 was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. R-3 further claims that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R-4 and since R-1 was holding a valid driving license, therefore, liability, if any, is to be borne by R-4/ Insurance Company.
16. A written statement was filed by the R-4/ Insurance company MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 21/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:22:48 +0530 claiming that R-1 was not holding a valid driving license and the offending vehicle was being plied without any valid permit and therefore petition is liable to be dismissed. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself. Rest of averments of the petition have been simply denied.
PEADINGS IN MACT NO. 58073/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Pushpa Gupta):
17. No written statement was filed by R-1, R-2 and R-3 despite availing sufficient opportunity and accordingly they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
18. A written statement was filed by the R-4/ Insurance company claiming that R-1 was not holding a valid driving license and the offending vehicle was being plied without any valid permit and therefore petition is liable to be dismissed. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself. Rest of averments of the petition have been simply denied.
ISSUES in MACT No. 57185-16 (For Grant of Compensation in re spect of the injuries sustained by injured Ms. Karishma Goyal) :
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. DigitallyPage No. 22/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:22:57 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
19. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration on 31/03/2016 :-
1. Whether the petitioner Ms. Karishma Goyal suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 27/10/2014 at about 02.10 AM involving Bus of the injured bearing no. UP16V3706 and offending Bus bearing registration NO. DL1PC5236 driven by the Respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 (Registered Owner), Respondent No.3 (Subsequent Owner) and insured with the Respondent no. 4?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
ISSUES in MACT No. 57192-16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Neeta Goyal) :
20. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration on 31/03/2016 :-
1. Whether the petitioner Ms. Neeta Goyal suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 27/10/2014 at about 02.10 AM involving Bus of the injured bearing no. UP16V3706 and offending Bus bearing registration NO. DL1PC5236 driven by the Respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 (Registered Owner), Respondent No.3 (Subsequent Owner) MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 23/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:23:07 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors and insured with the Respondent no. 4?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
ISSUES in MACT No. 58074-16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh. Sanjay Gupta) :
21. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration on .04/12/2017 :-
1. Whether the petitioner Sh. Sanjay Gupta suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 27/10/2014 at about 02.10 AM involving Bus of the injured bearing no. UP16V3706 and offending Bus bearing registration NO. DL1PC5236 driven by the Respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 (Registered Owner), Respondent No.3 (Subsequent Owner) and insured with the Respondent no. 4?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
ISSUES in MACT No. 56981-16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Meenu Garg) :
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 24/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally signed MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. by LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN 2022.12.21 16:23:19 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
22. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration on 31/03/2016 :
1. Whether the petitioner Ms. Meenu Garg suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 27/10/2014 at about 02.10 AM involving Bus of the injured bearing no. UP16V3706 and offending Bus bearing registration NO. DL1PC5236 driven by the Respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 (Registered Owner), Respondent No.3 (Subsequent Owner) and insured with the Respondent no. 4?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
ISSUES in MACT No. 57186-16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh. Amit Garg) :
23. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration on 31/03/2016 :-
1. Whether the petitioner Sh. Amit Garg suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 27/10/2014 at about 02.10 AM involving Bus of the injured bearing no. UP16V3706 and offending Bus bearing registration NO. DL1PC5236 driven by the Respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 (Registered Owner), Respondent No.3 (Subsequent Owner) and insured with the Respondent no. 4?OPP MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 25/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. signed by MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:23:26 +0530
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
ISSUES in MACT No. 58073-16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Pushpa Gupta) :
24. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration on 04.12.2017:-
1. Whether the petitioner Smt. Pushpa Gupta suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 27/10/2014 at about 02.10 AM involving Bus of the injured bearing no. UP16V3706 and offending Bus bearing registration NO. DL1PC5236 driven by the Respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 (Registered Owner), Respondent No.3 (Subsequent Owner) and insured with the Respondent no. 4?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE in MACT No. 57185/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Ms. Karishma Goyal) :
25. No evidence was lead by petitioner K.G. in the present case.
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 26/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:23:33 +0530 25.1 All the above matters were consolidated at the stage of recording of respondent's evidence vide order dated 23.09.2022 and the present matter ( ie. MACT No. 57185/16 for Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Ms. Karishma Goyal) was treated as a lead case. All the evidence lead by respondents was recorded in the present matter.
25.2 No evidence was lead in defence by the respondents no. 1, 2 &
3. 25.3 R-4/ Insurance Company examined Sh. Rahul Kumar Upadhaya, Assistant Manager, (Legal) as R4W1. He deposed vide his affidavit Ex. R4W1/X that R-4 issued an insurance policy in favour of R-3 covering the the offending vehicle on the date of accident. He further deposed that as per the investigation carried out by R-4, R-1 was not holding a valid driving license as on the date of accident. He further deposed that separate notices u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC were sent to R-1 and R-3 for the production of original driving license and original permit. He placed reliance on the following documents:-
''Ex, R4W1/1 is copy of insurance policy (Colly); Ex. R4W1/2 is notice u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC sent to R-1; Ex. R4W1/3 is postal receipt;
Ex. R4W1/4 is notice u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC sent to R-3;MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 27/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. signed by MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:23:42 +0530 Ex. R4W1/5 & Ex. R4W1/6 are postal receipts; Ex. R4W1/7 is returned envelop".
Ex. R4W1/5 and Ex. R4W/6 are postal receipts''. He was cross examined in brief only on behalf of petitioner. 25.4 R-4/ Insurance Company also examined Sh. Prabhash Gautam S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, Junior Assistant, RTO Ghazaiabad, UP as R4W2. He produced the record pertaining to permit bearing No. UP14/102/AITP/2014/4795. He deposed that as per their record, against said permit, the vehicle bearing No. UP-14ET-1410 is registered. The report sent in by the concerned RTO to the said effect is Ex. R4W2/1. He was not cross examined by any of the parties.
25.5 R-4/ Insurance Company further examined Sh. Dalip Kumar S/o Late Sh. Kanihya Lal, Sr. Assistant, ARTO, Baghpat, UP as R4W3. He placed on record a DL verification report sent in by RTO, Bhagpat, U.P. pertaining to DL bearing No. UP-85-19990002291 issued in favour of Sh. Pinku Singh ( R-1). He further deposed that the same was issued on the basis of base/original DL bearing No. 2291/MTR/06/09/99. The report sent in by the concerned RTO is Ex. R4W3/1 (Colly). He further deposed that as per their record, the base/original DL has been issued from Mathura Authority. He was not cross examined by any of the parties.
25.6 R-4/ Insurance Company further examined Sh. Surajpal Singh, Sr. Assistant, ARTO, Mathura, UP as R4W4. He placed on the judicial file a MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 28/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN 2022.12.21 16:23:49 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 report sent in by RTO, Mathura with respect to DL bearing No. 2291/MTR/99 issued in the name of Sh. Som Dutt Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Damodar Sharma R/o Village Mudesh, Mathura, UP and stated that the said DL was issued on 14/05/1999 which was valid till 19/10/2013. He further deposed that the said DL was not issued in favour of Sh. Pinku Singh. The report sent in by RTO concerned is Ex. R4W4/2 (Colly). He was not cross examined by any of the parties.
25.7 RE was then closed by Ld. Counsel for R-4/ Insurance Company on 16/11/2022.
EVIDENCE in MACT No. 57192/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Neeta Goyal) :
26. The petitioner N.G examined herself as PW-1 in support of her claim. The petitioner N.G. filed an affidavit Ex PW1/A wherein she described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. She stated to have sustained injuries at the relevant time. She further deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R-1. Petitioner N.G. further stated that she was immediately removed to Civil Hospital, Reingas, Rajasthan, thereafter to Fortis Escorts, Jaipur, Rajasthan. She also took treatment from B.L.K. Super Specialty Hospital, Pusa Road, Delhi. As per petitioner N.G., she used to run a boutique ( stitching & knitting work) and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month (approx). She claims to have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 29/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Digitally signed by MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 16:23:57 +0530 50,000/- towards her medical treatment, special diet and conveyance etc. Petitioner N.G. seeks compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 Lakhs in respect of injuries sustained by her.
Petitioner N.G. has relied upon the following documents viz:-
"Ex. PW1/1(OSR) is copy of Aadhar Card of PW-1; Ex. PW1/2 (Colly) are original treatment papers of PW- 1;
Ex. PW1/3 (Colly) are original medical bills of PW-1; Ex. PW1/4 (Colly) is copy of ITR of PW-1;
She was cross examined only by R-4/ Insurance Company. 26.1 Respondent's evidence was recorded in lead case ( MACT No. 57185/16) mentioned above.
EVIDENCE in MACT No. 58074/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh. Sanjay Gupta):
Sh. Sanjay Gupta) :
27. The petitioner S.G. examined himself as PW-1 in support of his claim. The petitioner S.G. filed an affidavit Ex PW1/A wherein he described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He stated to have sustained injuries at the relevant time. He further deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R-1. Petitioner S.G. further deposed that he was immediately removed to MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 30/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:24:04 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 Civil Hospital, Reingas, Rajasthan, thereafter to Fortis Escorts, Jaipur, Rajasthan. He also took treatment from Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. As per petitioner S.G., he was working as a Branch Manager with M/s Wuerth India Pvt. Ltd and was drawing a salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month. He claims to have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- towards his medical treatment, special diet and conveyance etc. Petitioner S.G. seeks compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 Lakhs in respect of injuries sustained by him.
Petitioner S.G. has relied upon the following documents viz:- "Ex. PW1/1(OSR) is copy of Aadhar Card of PW-1; Ex. PW1/2, Ex. PW1/3 & Ex. PW1/4 are original treatment sheets of PW-1;
Ex. PW1/5 (Colly) is copy of ITR of PW-1 for the years 2014-15 & 15-16''.
He was cross examined only by R-4/ Insurance Company. 27.1 Respondent's evidence was recorded in lead case ( MACT No. 57185/16) mentioned above.
EVIDENCE in MACT No. 56981/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Meenu Garg) :
28. The petitioner M.G examined herself as PW-1 in support of her claim. The petitioner M.G. filed an affidavit Ex PW1/A wherein she described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. She stated to have sustained injuries at the relevant time.MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 31/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:24:12 +0530 She further deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R-1. Petitioner M.G. further stated that she was immediately removed to Civil Hospital, Reingas, Rajasthan, thereafter to Fortis Escorts, Jaipur, Rajasthan. She also took treatment from B.L.K. Super Specialty Hospital, Pusa Road, Delhi. As per petitioner M.G., she used to run a boutique ( stitching & knitting work) and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month (approx). She claims to have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- towards her medical treatment, special diet and conveyance etc. Petitioner N.G. seeks compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 Lakhs in respect of injuries sustained by her.
Petitioner M.G. has relied upon the following documents viz:- "Ex. PW1/1(OSR) is copy of Aadhar Card of PW-1; Ex. PW1/2 (Colly) are MLC, case summary and discharge summary of PW-1;
Ex. PW1/3 is discharge summary of PW-1; Ex. PW1/4 (Colly) are medical cards of PW-1; Ex. PW1/5 (Colly) are medical bills of PW-1; Ex. PW1/6 are ITRs for the years 2012-13 & 13-14 of PW-1;
Ex. PW1/7 are two photographs of PW-1;
She was cross examined only by R-4/ Insurance Company.
28.1 Petitioner M.G. also examined Dr. B.Kanhar, Sr. Orthopedic & HOD Orthopedics, from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi as PW2. PW2 MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 32/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally signed MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:24:18 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors proved the disability certificate issued in favour of petitioner M.G. as Ex PW12/1. As per disability certificate of the petitioner Ex PW1/2, the petitioner is a case of '' # Ulna ( R )''. As per said certificate, petitioner M.G. was found to have sustained 20% permanent physical impairment with respect to her right upper limb which is not likely to improve. He was cross examined only by R4/ Insurance Company.
28.2 Respondent's evidence was recorded in lead case ( MACT No. 57185/16) mentioned above.
EVIDENCE in MACT No. 57186/16 ( For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh. Amit Garg) :
29. The petitioner A.G. examined himself as PW-1 in support of his claim. The petitioner A.G filed an affidavit Ex PW1/A wherein he described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He stated to have sustained injuries at the relevant time. He further deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R-1. Petitioner A.G. was immediately removed to Fortis Escorts, Jaipur, Rajasthan, where he remained admitted from 27.10.2014 to 30.10.2014. He also took treatment from Paschimi Hospital, New Multan Nagar, Delhi. As per petitioner A.G., he was running a Readymade Garments business and was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. He claims to have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- towards his medical treatment, special diet and Digitally signed MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. by LOVLEEN Page No. 33/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 16:24:25 MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. +0530 MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors conveyance etc. Petitioner A.G. seeks compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Lakhs in respect of injuries sustained by him.
Petitioner A.G. has relied upon the following documents viz:- "Ex. PW1/1(OSR) is copy of ration Card of PW-1; Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) is copy of Election ID Card of PW-1; Ex. PW1/3 is original discharge summary of PW-1; Ex. PW1/4 is original OPD Card of PW-1; Ex. PW1/5 are original medical bills of PW-1 Ex. PW1/6 (Colly) are copies of ITRs for the years 2012- 13 & 2013-14;
Ex. PW1/7 (Colly) are photographs of injured showing injuries.'' He was cross examined only by R-4/ Insurance Company.
29.1 Petitioner A.G. also examined Dr. B.Kanhar, Sr. Orthopedic & HOD Orthopedics, from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi as PW2. PW2 proved the disability certificate issued in favour of petitioner as Ex PW2/1. As per disability certificate of the petitioner Ex PW2/1, the petitioner is a case of '' # SOH (L) # Clavicle ( R ). As per said certificate, petitioner A.G. was found to have sustained 26% permanent physical impairment with respect to his both upper limbs (Right and Left) which is not likely to improve. He was cross examined only by R3/ Insurance Company.MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 34/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:24:30 +0530 29.2 Respondent's evidence was recorded in lead case mentioned above.
EVIDENCE in MACT No. 58073/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Pushpa Gupta) :
30. The petitioner P.G examined herself as PW-1 in support of her claim. The petitioner P.G. filed an affidavit Ex PW1/A wherein she described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. She stated to have sustained injuries at the relevant time. She further deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R-1. Petitioner P.G. was immediately removed to Fortis Escorts, Jaipur, Rajasthan. She remained hospitalized in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi from 27.10.2014 to 31.10.2014. She also took treatment from Tripathi Hospital and Trauma Centre, Ghaziabad, U.P. As per petitioner P.G., she was giving tuitions to the children of class 1st to class 5th and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month. She claims to have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards her medical treatment, special diet and conveyance etc. Petitioner P.G. seeks compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Lakhs in respect of injuries sustained by her.
Petitioner has relied upon the following documents viz:- "Ex. PW1/1(OSR) is copy of Aadhar Card of PW-1;MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 35/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Date: MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN 2022.12.21 16:24:39 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 Ex. PW1/2 (Colly) are original treatment sheets of PW- 1;
Ex. PW1/3 is discharge summary of PW-1; Ex. PW1/4 (Colly) are original OPD Cards and test reports of PW-1;
Ex. PW1/5 (Colly) are medical bills of PW-1''.
She was cross examined only by R-4/ Insurance Company.
30.1 Petitioner P.G. also examined Dr. B.Kanhar, Sr. Orthopedic & HOD Orthopedics, from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi as PW2. PW2 proved the disability certificate issued in favour of petitioner as Ex PW1/2. As per disability certificate of the petitioner Ex PW1/2, the petitioner is a case of '' # Humerus ( R )''. As per said certificate, petitioner P.G. was found to have sustained 16% permanent physical impairment with respect to her right upper limb which is not likely to improve. He was cross examined only by R4/ Insurance Company.
30.2 Respondent's evidence was recorded in lead case ( MACT No. 57185/16) mentioned above.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
31. Oral submissions were advanced by Sh. B.K.Poddar, Ld. MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 36/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN 2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:24:46 +0530 Counsel for petitioners and Sh. Munish Gupta, Ld. Counsel for R-4/ Insurance Company. None came forward to advance arguments on behalf of R-1, R-2 & R-3.
32. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings is as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 ( IN ALL PETITIONS)
33. 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 lesser 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.
34. In order to decide the present issue we must look into the oral MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 37/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Date: MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN 2022.12.21 16:24:53 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 testimony of petitioner N.G., petitioner S.G., petitioner M.G., petitioner A.G., and petitioner P.G. All the said petitioners deposed in unison, vide their respective affidavits, that at the relevant time R-1 was driving the offending vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. They further deposed that R-1 lost control over the offending vehicle at a Turn ( ie the spot of accident) due to high speed, whereafter the offending vehicle rammed into an electricity pole and then overturned. The said testimony of all the above mentioned petitioners has gone unchallenged and unrebutted qua R-1, R-2 and R-3 as none of them turned up to cross examine either of the petitioners. The brief cross examination of said petitioners by R-4/ Insurance Company does not reflect any material contest as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident in question. Moreover, all the said petitioners have been able to respond to all the relevant queries of R-4/ Insurance Company as to the date and time of occurrence, the speed of the offending vehicle and the manner in which R-1 was driving the offending vehicle. In effect, nothing has come on record which betrays any falsity in the oral testimony of above said petitioners as to the facts and circumstances leading to the occurrence of the accident in question.
35. The very fact that R-1 has already been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337 IPC in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of petitioner N.G., petitioner Sanjay Gupta, petitioner M.G., MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 38/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:25:01 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors petitioner A.G., and petitioner P.G. and the case of petitioners on this issue. The copies of FIR, Charge-sheet, Site plan and Mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle of R-1 also corroborate the oral testimony of petitioner N.G., petitioner S.G., petitioner M.G., petitioner A.G., and petitioner P.G. That apart, petitioners have also placed on record a certified copy of judgment dated 21/12/2015 passed by the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sikar, whereby R-1 was convicted of the offences punishable u/s 279/337 IPC.
36. 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 petitioner N.G., petitioner Sanjay Gupta, petitioner M.G., petitioner A.G., and petitioner P.G." regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
37. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
38. In view of the medical treatment documents placed on record by the petitioner N.G., petitioner S.G., petitioner M.G., petitioner A.G., and MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 39/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. LOVLEEN Date: MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:25:07 +0530 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors petitioner P.G. no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by them in the above accident.
39. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner N.G., petitioner S.G, petitioner M.G., petitioner A.G., and petitioner P.G. suffered injuries on their person on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. All these issues thus stand decided against the respondents and in favour of the respective petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 2 (IN ALL THE PETITIONS) "Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?"
40. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners have 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.
41. 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 MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 40/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally signed MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:25:15 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 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 mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 41/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:25:22 +0530 Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
42. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which could be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
COMPENSATION IN MACT NO. 57185/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Ms . Karishma Goyal) :
Pain and Suffering
43. In view of the decision in Issue No. 1 above, the Petitioner K.G. is entitled to be granted compensation under this head, but in the absence of any evidence as to the nature of injuries sustained by the said petitioner, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to grant a nominal sum of Rs. 2,500/- to the petitioner under this head.
COMPENSATION IN MACT NO. 57192/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Neeta Goyal) :
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
44. The petitioner N.G. has placed on judicial file her medical treatment records and bills as Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/3(colly) respectively.
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 42/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:25:28 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors As per the said documents, petitioner N.G. has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 9594.30/-.
45. In the absence of any contest to the said documents (placed on record by the petitioner N.G.), the petitioner N.G. is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 9594/- under this head.
(ii) Loss of actual earnings
46. In her affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner N.G. states that at the relevant time, she was running a boutique and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from said vocation. However, the said petitioner N.G. has not placed any corroborative material on record with respect to her vocation or income. Only a photocopy of an ITR pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15 has been placed on record by the said petitioner, but the same could not be relied upon as the said petitioner did not bother to summon and prove the records of IT Department during the course of present enquiry. Be that as it may, petitioner N.G. has miserably failed to depose in her affidavit that the injuries sustained by her incapacitated her temporarily or permanently so as to render her unfit for doing any work. Even, the medical records placed on judicial file by petitioner N.G. does not reflect that she was advised any bed rest. As such, nothing is admissible to petitioner N.G. under this head.
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 43/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:25:34 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
(iii) Pain and Suffering
47. As per medical record Ex. PW1/2, the petitioner N.G sustained multiple abrasions and soft issue injuries due to the accident. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to injured for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which she actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate her for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner N.G an amount of Rs. 5,000/- is being awarded to her towards pain and sufferings.
COMPENSATION IN MACT NO. 58074/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh.
Sanjay Gupta ):
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
48. The petitioner Sanjay Gupta has placed on judicial file his medical treatment records and medical bills as Ex. PW1/2, Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4(colly). As per the said documents, petitioner has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 270/-.
49. In the absence of any contest to the said documents (placed on record by the petitioner), the petitioner Sanjay Gupta is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 270/- under this head.
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 44/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2022.12.21 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:25:41 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
(ii) Loss of actual earnings
50. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner S.G. states that at the relevant time, he was employed as a Manager with M/s Wuerth India Private Ltd and was drawing a salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month. However, the said petitioner has not placed any corroborative material on record with respect to his employment or income. Only photocopies of ITRs pertaining to the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 have been placed on record by the said petitioner, but the same could not be relied upon as the said petitioner did not bother to summon and prove the records of IT Department during the course of present enquiry. Be that as it may, petitioner S.G. has miserably failed to depose in his affidavit that the injuries sustained by him incapacitated him temporarily or permanently so as to render him unfit for doing any work. Even, the medical records placed on judicial file by petitioner Sanjay Gupta does not reflect that he was advised any bed rest. As such, nothing is admissible to petitioner Sanjay Gupta under this head.
(iii) Pain and Suffering
51. As per medical records Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/3, the petitioner Sanjay Gupta sustained simple injuries due to the accident. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner Sanjay Gupta 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, MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 45/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:25:47 +0530 keeping in view the extent and nature of injuries suffered by petitioner S.G. an amount of Rs. 5,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings.
COMPENSATION IN MACT NO. 56981/16 ( For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Meenu Garg) :
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
52. The petitioner M.G. has placed on judicial file her MLC, medical treatment records as Ex. PW1/2(colly), Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 (colly). She has also placed on record her original medical bills as Ex. PW1/5(colly). As per the said documents, petitioner M.G has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,620/-.
53. In the absence of any contest to the said documents (placed on record by the petitioner M.G), the petitioner M.G. is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,620/- under this head.
(ii) Loss of actual earnings
54. Petitioner M.G. states in her affidavit Ex. PW1/A that at the relevant time, she was giving tuitions to the children of Class 5 th to Class 10th and was earning Rs. 40,000/- per month. However, the said petitioner has not MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 46/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedMACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:25:54 +0530 placed any corroborative material on record with respect to her vocation or income. Only photocopies of ITRs pertaining to the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 have been placed on record by the said petitioner, but the same could not be relied upon as the said petitioner did not bother to summon and prove the records of IT Department during the course of present enquiry. In effect, there is nothing on record to corroborate the claim of petitioner M.G. as to her vocation or her monthly income.In these circumstances, this Tribunal is not inclined to uphold the prayer for grant of compensation under this head.
(iii) Pain and Suffering as well as Loss of Amenities
55. As per medical documents Ex. PW1/2 (Colly), Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4, the petitioner M.G. remained hospitalized from 27/10/2014 to 04/11/2014. She continued her medical treatment for quite sometime thereafter. As per above documents, petitioner M.G. sustained the following injuries :' Degloving W T Inj Rt FA w Fr Ulna Midshaft w Cerv CNTw Abd CNT' and had to undergo ' Fasciotomy Rt FA w Interlocking nailing Ulna.' Petitioner M.G. has also placed on record her photographs Ex. PW1/7 which reflect the severity of the injuries sustained by her.
55.1 Petitioner M.G. summoned and examined PW2 Dr. B.Kanhar, Orthopaedician to prove her disability certificate as Ex. PW2/1. As per MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 47/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Digitally signed MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 16:26:01 +0530 disability certificate Ex. PW2/1, the petitioner has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 20% with respect to her right upper limb. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which she actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate her 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 her etc., an amount of Rs. 75,000/ is being awarded to her towards pain and sufferings during the said period of her treatment and immobility.
55.2 It seems that petitioner M.G. is a housewife, therefore, it would not be inappropriate to assume that the disability sustained by petitioner M.G. would adversely affect her ability to look after the household work in an efficient manner. Her disability entitles her to be granted compensation towards loss of amenities also. As such, she is granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards loss of amenities.
(iv) Conveyance and Special Diet
56. Keeping in view the nature of inquires sustained by the petitioner M.G. and the duration of her medical treatment, she is granted a sum of Rs. 5,000/ each under these heads.
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 48/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:26:14 +0530 COMPENSATION IN MACT NO. 57186/16 ( For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh .
Amit Garg) :
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
57. The petitioner A.G. has placed on judicial file his medical treatment records and medical bills as Ex. PW1/3, Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5(colly). As per the said documents, petitioner A.G. has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,500/-.
58. In the absence of any contest to the said documents (placed on record by the petitioner), the petitioner A.G. is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,500/- under this head.
(ii) Loss of actual earnings
59. Petitioner A.G. states in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he sustained 'avulsion injury of scalp, fracture left shaft of femur, fractures on both shoulders, fracture right nasal bone, fracture of right transverse process of 7-7 vertebra, fracture of posterior ends of right 1 st 2nd & 3rd ribs fracture of anterior end of right 3 rd rib, fracture of left transverse process of L4 vertebra and also sustained abrasions, wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body' due to the accident apart from other injuries. As per medical documents, petitioner A.G. remained hospitalized MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 49/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:26:20 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 from 27/10/2014 to 30/10/2014. He also took treatment as an out patient after his hospitalization. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner A.G., it would not be inappropriate to assume that the said petitioner would not have been able to resume his work for a period of 03 months atleast.
59.1 Petitioner A.G. claims in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he was running a business of Readymade Garments at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month from the said business. However, the said petitioner has not placed any corroborative material on record with respect to his vocation or income. Only photocopies of ITRs pertaining to the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 have been placed on record by the said petitioner, but the same could not be relied upon as the said petitioner did not bother to summon and prove the records of IT Department during the course of present enquiry. As such, it would be appropriate to assess the monthly income of petitioner A.G. as per minimum wages payable to an unskilled person in Delhi at the time of accident (injured being an ordinary resident of Delhi). At the relevant time, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled person in Delhi were Rs. 8,632/- per month. Accordingly, petitioner A.G. is granted a sum of Rs. 25,896/- ( Rs. 8,632X3) as compensation under this head.MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 50/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:26:27 +0530 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
(iii) Loss of future earnings due to disability
60. Petitioner A.G. claims in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident he is unable to lift weights or sit or move like a normal person. But the medical documents placed on record by petitioner A.G. do not reflect any observations supportive of the said claim of petitioner A.G. In fact the disability certificate Ex. PW2/1, issued in favour of petitioner A.G., does not seem to corroborate his said claim. Although disability certificate Ex. PW2/1 reflects that petitioner A.G. has sustained 26% permanent disability with respect to his both upper limbs, however, he (petitioner A.G.) has failed to state in his affidavit that the injuries sustained by him have lead to any loss of income after the accident, which means that petitioner A.G. has not sustained any functional disability. As such, nothing is admissible to the petitioner A.G. under this head.
(iv) Pain and Suffering
61. As discussed above, the petitioner A.G. has sustained 'avulsion injury of scalp, fracture left shaft of femur, fractures on both shoulders, fracture right nasal bone, fracture of right transverse process of 7-7 vertebra, fracture of posterior ends of right 1 st 2nd & 3rd ribs fracture of anterior end of right 3rd rib, fracture of left transverse process of L4 vertebra and also sustained abrasions, wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body' and is a case of 26% permanent physical MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 51/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 16:26:34 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors disability with respect to both upper limbs. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to injured 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 A.G. and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings.
(iv) Conveyance & Special Diet
62. In the absence of any evidence in this respect, but keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner A.G., he is awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each under these heads.
COMPENSATION IN MACT NO. 58073/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Pushpa Gupta) :
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
63. The petitioner P.G.has placed on judicial file the medical treatment records as Ex. PW1/2, Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4 (Colly). She has also placed on record her original medical bills as Ex. PW1/5(colly). As per the said documents, petitioner has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,46,221.42/-.
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 52/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:26:40 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
64. 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. 1,46,221/- under this head.
(ii) Loss of actual earnings
65. Petitioner P.G. states in her affidavit Ex. PW1/A that at the relevant time, she was giving tuitions to the children of Class 1 st to Class 5th and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, the said petitioner has not placed any corroborative material on record with respect to her vocation or income. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is not inclined to uphold the prayer for grant of compensation under this head.
(iii) Pain and Suffering as well as Loss of Amenities
66. As per medical documents Ex. PW1/2, Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4 (Colly), the petitioner P.G. remained hospitalized from 27/10/2014 to 31/10/2014. She continued her medical treatment for quite sometime thereafter. As per above documents, petitioner P.G. sustained the following injuries :'RTAComminuted Fracture Right Humerus with Left Pneumothrax' and had to undergo the following medical procedure: 'ORIF with 3 hole philos done under spinal anesthesia'.
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 53/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN 2022.12.21 16:26:46 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 66.1 Petitioner P.G. summoned and examined PW2 Dr. B.Kanhar, Orthopaedician to prove her disability certificate as Ex. PW2/1. As per disability certificate Ex. PW2/1, the petitioner P.G. has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 16% with respect to her right upper limb. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which she actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate her for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner P.G. and duration of the treatment taken by her etc., an amount of Rs. 75,000/ is being awarded to her towards pain and sufferings during the said period of her treatment and immobility.
66.2 It seems that petitioner P.G. is a housewife, therefore, it would not be inappropriate to assume that the disability sustained by petitioner P.G. would adversely affect her ability to look after the household work in an efficient manner. Her disability entitles her to be granted compensation towards loss of amenities also. As such, she is granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards loss of amenities.
(iv) Conveyance and Special Diet
67. Keeping in view the nature of inquires sustained by the MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 54/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:26:52 +0530 petitioner P.G. and the duration of her medical treatment, she is granted a sum of Rs. 5,000/ each under these heads.
ISSUE NO.3 / RELIEF
68. The petitioner K.G. (IN CASE NO. 57185/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Ms. Karishma Goyal) is thus awarded a sum of Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only (Rs. 2,500/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 07.10.2015 However, it is directed that the amount of interim award, if any, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
69. The petitioner N.G. (IN CASE NO. 57192/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Neeta Goyal) is thus awarded a sum of Rupees Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Four Only (Rs. 9,594/- + Rs. 5,000/-)along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 07.10.2015 However, it is directed that the amount of interim award, if any, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
70. The petitioner S.G. (IN CASE NO. 58074/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 55/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors.
Digitally MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors signed by MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 16:26:59 +0530 Sh. Sanjay Gupta) is thus awarded a sum of Rupees Five Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Only (Rs. 270/- + Rs. 5,000/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 20.07.2016 However, it is directed that the amount of interim award, if any, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
71. The petitioner M.G (IN CASE NO. 56981/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Meenu Garg is thus awarded a sum of Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Six Hundred Twenty only (Rs. 15,620/- + Rs. 75,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 5000/- + Rs. 5,000/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 07.10.2015. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award, if any, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
72. The petitioner A.G. (IN CASE NO. 57186/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh. Amit Garg is thus awarded a sum of Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Six only (Rs. 1,500/- + 25,896/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 07.10.2015. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award, if any, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
73. The petitioner P.G. (IN CASE NO. 58073/16 (For Grant of Co MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 56/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:27:07 +0530 mpensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Pushpa Gupta) is thus awarded a sum of(Rs. 1,46,221/- + Rs. 75,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-)along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 20.07.2016. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award, if any, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
RELEASE IN CASE NO. 57185/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Karishma Goyal) :
74. Petitioner K.G. did not bother to appear for recording of her financial statement before this Tribunal.
74.1 The entire awarded amount be released to petitioner K.G. alongwith upto date interest in her savings/MACT Claims SB Accounts as and when she furnishes the details of her bank account to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner K.G. RELEASE IN CASE NO. 57192/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Neeta Goyal ) :
75. Petitioner N.G. did not bother to appear for recording of her MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 57/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN 2022.12.21 16:27:19 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 financial statement before this Tribunal.
75.1 The entire awarded amount be released to petitioner N.G. alongwith upto date interest in her savings/MACT Claims SB Accounts as and when she furnishes the details of her bank account to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner N.G. RELEASE IN CASE NO. 58074/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh. Sanjay Gupta) :
76. Petitioner S.G. did not bother to appear for recording of his financial statement before this Tribunal.
76.1 The entire awarded amount be released to petitioner S.G. alongwith upto date interest in his savings/MACT Claims SB Accounts as and when he furnishes the details of his bank account to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner S.G. MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 58/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedMACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Date:
LOVLEEN MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:27:26 +0530 RELEASE IN CASE NO. 56981/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Meenu Garg) :
77. On 14.12.2022, statement of petitioner M.G. qua financial needs and requirements was recorded in terms of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 32 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. As per his statement, her household expenditure is Rs. 60,000/- per month. Photocopy of the passbook of the bank account of the petitioner M.G. maintained with J & K Bank Ltd, Branch : Shahdara, Delhi was also placed on record at that time. Photocopies of Aadhar Card and PAN Card were also placed on record by the injured, apart from two coloured photographs of the petitioner M.G. 77.1 Out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 20 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 20 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 her savings/MACT Claims J & K Bank Account bearing No. 0287040100011450 IFSC Code - JAKAOSHADRA maintained with J & K Ltd, Branch - Shahdara, Delhi (PAN No. AFQPG6315P). The remaining MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 59/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Digitally signed by MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 16:27:34 +0530 amount of Rs. 47,769/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Nine only) ( 10% of awarded amount + medical expenses) is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner M.G. RELEASE IN CASE NO. 57186/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh. Amit Garg) :
78. Out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 10 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 10 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 J & K Bank Account bearing No. 0287040100011451 IFSC Code - JAKAOSHADRA maintained with J & K Ltd, Branch - Shahdara, Delhi (PAN No. AFQPG6331P). The remaining amount of Rs. 43,766/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Six only) ( 10% of awarded amount + medical expenses) is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner A.G. MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 60/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:27:40 +0530 RELEASE IN CASE NO. 58073/16 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Pushpa Gupta) :
79. Petitioner P.G. did not bother to appear for recording of her financial statement before this Tribunal.
79.1 Out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only) is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 28 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 28 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 her savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when she furnishes the details of her bank account which is near the place of her 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. 1,73,626/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Six only) ( 10% of awarded amount + medical expenses) is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner P.G. MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 61/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:27:47 +0530 LIABILITY
80. On the point of liability, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the R4/ Insurance Company that at the relevant time R1 was plying the offending vehicle without any valid DL and without any valid permit. Ld. Counsel for R4/ Insurance Company submitted that R1 & R3 were served with separate notices issued under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to produce the driving license of R1 as well as the permit of the offending vehicle but the same were never produced before it(R4) or before this Tribunal. Ld. Counsel for R4/ Insurance Company further submits that R4W1 has deposed in support of above submissions regarding dispatch of notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC to R1 & R3. He further submits that the report sent in by the concerned RTO, placed on judicial file by R4W2, reflects that the permit propounded by respondents was not issued w.r.t. offending vehicle, rather the same was issued with respect to vehicle bearing registration no. UP14ET1410. He further submits that a joint reading of the reports issued by the concerned RTOs, placed on judicial file by R4W3 and R4W4, reflects that the driving license propounded by R1 was fake. He prays for grant of recovery rights to R4/ Insurance Company.
80.1 It has been noted by this Tribunal that R1 & R3 have not bothered to come forward and contest the matter on merits. In fact, the defence of R1 & R2 was struck off in MACT Nos. 57185/16, 57192/16 , MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 62/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Date:
LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:27:55 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 56981/16 & 57186/16 and in MACT Nos. 58073/ 16 & 58074/16, R1, R2 and R3 were proceeded against exparte. None of the said respondents have bothered to cross examine the witnesses R4W2 ( who placed on record a report issued by the concerned RTO to the effect that the 'permit' propounded by respondents before the police during the course of investigation was fake) and R4W3 and R4W4 (who placed on record reports issued by concerned RTOs whose joint reading reflects that the 'driving license' propounded by R 1 before the police during the course of investigation was also fake).
Accordingly, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time the R1 was driving the offending vehicle without any valid driving licence and that the offending vehicle was being plied without a valid permit. These facts entitle R4/ Insurance Company to be granted recovery rights. Ordered accordingly. As per the certified copies of chargesheet and its annexures, especially the vehicle particulars maintained by the RTO, Ghaziabad, as on the date of accident the offending vehicle stood registered in the name of R
3. Hence, R4/ Insurance Company shall be entitled to enforce the recovery rights against R1 and R3 only.
81. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-3 being owner of the offending vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners. However, since the MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 63/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:28:02 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 offending vehicle was insured with R-4 at the time of accident, therefore, R- 4/ Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-3 in respect of above liability. As such R-4 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioners/ injured 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 @ 9.0% per annum, failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
82. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties. 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 mentioned at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 64/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:28:08 +0530
83. 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. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
84. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'be 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 the same be put up on 21.01.2023. LOVLEEN Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2022.12.21 16:28:15 +0530 Announced in the open court (LOVLEEN) On this 21/12/2022 Judge, MACT-02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/21/12/2022 FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE BEARING MACT NO.57185/16 MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 65/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:28:29 +0530
1. Date of accident : 27/10/2014
2. Name of the injured : Smt. Karishma Goyal
3. Age of the injured : 27 Years
4. Occupation of the injured : Pursuing BCA
5. Income of the injured : NIL
6. Nature of injury : Simple
7. Medical treatment taken : Different Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : NIL
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : NIL
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 66/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:28:36 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
(i) Expenditure on treatment NIL
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance NIL
(iii) Expenditure on special diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income NIL
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecunicary Loss:MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 67/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:28:47 +0530
(i) Compensation for mental NIL and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 2,500/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NIL
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Discomfort, Inconvenience NIL
and Loss of earnings to the
Parents during the period of
hospitalization
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(I) Percentage of disability NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 68/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:28:56 +0530
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A expectation of life span on account of disability NIL
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NIL (Income x% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 2500/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs. 1,613/-(rounded off) date of award
17. Total amount including Rs. 4,113/-
interest MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 69/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:29:07 +0530
18. Award amount released Rs. 4,113 /-
19. Award amount kept in NIL FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioners(s).
21. Next date for compliance 21/01/2023 of the award.
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE BEARING MACT NO.57192/16
1. Date of accident : 27/10/2014
2. Name of the injured : Smt. Neeta Goyal
3. Age of the injured : 40 Years MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 70/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedMACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date: 2022.12.21 16:29:15 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Work
5. Income of the injured : NIL
6. Nature of injury : Simple
7. Medical treatment taken : Different Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : NIL
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : NIL
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 9,594/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance NIL MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 71/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2022.12.21 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:29:22 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
(iii) Expenditure on special diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income NIL
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecunicary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 72/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21
MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:29:36
+0530
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NIL
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Discomfort, Inconvenience NIL and Loss of earnings to the Parents during the period of hospitalization
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(I) Percentage of disability NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A
expectation of life span on
account of disability
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally Page No. 73/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. 2022.12.21
16:29:42
MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors NIL
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NIL (Income x% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 14,594/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs. 9413/-(rounded off) date of award
17. Total amount including Rs. 24,007/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs. 24,007/-
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 74/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally signed by MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:29:50 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
19. Award amount kept in NIL FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioners(s).
21. Next date for compliance 21/01/2023 of the award.
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE BEARING MACT NO.58074/16
1. Date of accident : 27/10/2014
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Sanjay Gupta
3. Age of the injured : 53 Years
4. Occupation of the injured : Branch Manager
5. Income of the injured : NIL
6. Nature of injury : Simple
7. Medical treatment taken : Different Hospitals MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 75/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:29:57 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530
8. Period of Hospitalization : NIL
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : NIL
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 270/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance
NIL
(iii) Expenditure on special diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 76/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:30:08 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income NIL
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NIL
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 77/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally
MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. signed by
LOVLEEN
MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:30:18
+0530
MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
(vi) Discomfort, Inconvenience NIL and Loss of earnings to the Parents during the period of hospitalization
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(I) Percentage of disability NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A
expectation of life span on
account of disability
NIL
(iii) Percentage of loss of
earning capacity in relation
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NIL
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 5,270/-
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 78/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:30:24 +0530
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs. 3,043/-(rounded off) date of award
17. Total amount including Rs. 8,313/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs. 8,313 /-
19. Award amount kept in NIL FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioners(s).
21. Next date for compliance 21/01/2023 of the award.
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 79/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedMACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 16:30:30 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530 SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE BEARING MACT NO.56981/16
1. Date of accident : 27/10/2014
2. Name of the injured : Smt. Meenu Garg
3. Age of the injured : 45 Years
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Job
5. Income of the injured : NIL
6. Nature of injury : Grievious Injuries
7. Medical treatment taken : Different Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : 27.10.2014 to 04.11.2014
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : NIL
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 80/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:30:37 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 15,620/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 5,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant NIL
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income NIL
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 81/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally
signed by
MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:30:44
+0530
MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
12. Non-Pecunicary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 75,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Discomfort, Inconvenience NIL
and Loss of earnings to the
Parents during the period of
hospitalization
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 82/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:30:50 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors (I) Percentage of disability NIL assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A expectation of life span on account of disability NIL
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NIL (Income x% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 1,50,620/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs. 97,149/-(rounded off) date of award MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 83/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:30:58 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
17. Total amount including Rs. 2,47,769/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs.47,769/- ( 10% of awarded amount + medical expenses)
19. Award amount kept in Rs. 2,00,000/-
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioners(s).
21. Next date for compliance 21/01/2023 of the award.
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 84/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:31:30 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE BEARING MACT NO.57186/16
1. Date of accident : 27/10/2014
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Amit Garg
3. Age of the injured : 56 Years
4. Occupation of the injured : Businessman
5. Income of the injured : As per minimum wages for the unskilled person prevailing in Delhi at the relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievious Injuries
7. Medical treatment taken : Different Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : 27.10.2014 to 30.10.2014
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : NIL
10. Computation of Compensation MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 85/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:31:46 +0530 S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.1,500/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 5,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant NIL
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income Rs. 25,896/-
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 86/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN 2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:31:54 +0530
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecunicary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NIL
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Discomfort, Inconvenience NIL
and Loss of earnings to the
Parents during the period of
hospitalization
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 87/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:32:01 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(I) Percentage of disability NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A
expectation of life span on
account of disability
NIL
(iii) Percentage of loss of
earning capacity in relation
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NIL
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 87,396/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 88/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally signed
MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. by LOVLEEN
MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:32:11
+0530
MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
16. Interest amount up to the Rs. 56,370 /-(rounded off) date of award
17. Total amount including Rs. 1,43,766/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs. 43,766/- ( 10% of awarded amount + medical expenses)
19. Award amount kept in Rs. 1,00,000/-
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioners(s).
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 89/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. signed by MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:32:18 +0530
21. Next date for compliance 21/01/2023 of the award.
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE BEARING MACT NO.58073/16
1. Date of accident : 27/10/2014
2. Name of the injured : Smt. Pushpa Gupta
3. Age of the injured : 52 Years
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Job
5. Income of the injured : NIL
6. Nature of injury : Grievious Injuries
7. Medical treatment taken : Different Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : 27.10.2014 to 31.10.2014.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : NIL MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 90/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:32:27 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 1,46,221/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 5,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant NIL
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income NIL
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 91/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:32:34 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecunicary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 75,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Discomfort, Inconvenience NIL
and Loss of earnings to the
Parents during the period of
hospitalization
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 92/95
MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:32:40 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(I) Percentage of disability NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A
expectation of life span on
account of disability
NIL
(iii) Percentage of loss of
earning capacity in relation
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NIL
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 2,81,221/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 93/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors Digitally signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date: 2022.12.21 16:32:47 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
16. Interest amount up to the Rs. 1,62,405 /-(rounded off) date of award
17. Total amount including Rs. 4,43,626/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs. 1,73,626/- ( 10% of awarded amount+ medical expenses)
19. Award amount kept in Rs. 2,70,000/-
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioners(s).
MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 94/95MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors Digitally MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. signed by LOVLEEN MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 16:32:53 +0530 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors
21. Next date for compliance 21/01/2023 of the award.
CONCLUSION
1. As per award dated 21.12.2022.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 21.01.2023. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2022.12.21 16:32:59 +0530 (LOVLEEN) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/21.12.2022 MACT No. 57185/16 Karishma Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Page No. 95/95 MACT No. 57192/16 Neeta Goyal Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors MACT No. 58074/16 Sanjay Gupta Vs. Pinku Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MACT No. 56981/16 Meenu Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
MACT No. 57186/16 Amit Garg Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors 2022.12.21 16:33:07 MACT No. 58073/16 Pushpa Gupta Vs. & Pinku Singh Ors +0530