Delhi District Court
Sunita Shukla vs Rahul Katyal on 9 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 376/2018
FIR No. 743/2017
PS : Sector-31, Faridabad (Haryana)
U/s 279/337/338 IPC
CNR NO. DLSE010020042018
Sunita Shukla
W/o Sh. Hari Niwas
R/o H. No. G-134, Harikesh Nagar
Okhla Phase-2, Railway Line,
Okhla, Delhi.
....Claimant
Versus
1. Rahul Katyal
S/o Sh. Anil Kumar Katyal
R/o B-1/45, 2nd Floor, Gali no.20
Near Nawad Metro Station,
Kiran Garden, Uttam Nagar
Delhi.
.....Driver/ R-1
2. Sujata Rani
W/o Sh. Anil Kumar Katyal
R/o B-1/45, 2nd Floor, Gali no.20
Near Nawad Metro Station,
Kiran Garden, Uttam Nagar
Delhi.
.....Owner/ R-2
MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 1/23
3. M/s Bharti Axa Gen. Ins. Co. ltd.
701, 7th Floor, Mercantile House, 15
KG Marg, Connaught Place.
.....Insurance Company/ R-2
Date of accident : 08.11.2017
Date of filing of Claim Petition : 09.03.2018
Date of Decision : 09.07.2024
AWARD
1. Claim Petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of
Motor Vehicles Act 1988 seeking compensation for an amount of
Rs. 10,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum
was filed on 09.03.2018 by Smt. Sunita Shukla (hereinafter
referred as claimant) who got injured in an accident which took
place on 18.11.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of Trolla
bearing Registration No. DL 8CAD 0714 (hereinafter referred as
the offending vehicle) which was being driven by Sh. Rahul
Katyal (hereinafter referred as driver/R-1), owned by Smt. Sujata
Rani (hereinafter referred as owner/ R-2) and insured with M/s
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter
referred as insurance company/R-3)
2. It is averred in the petition that on 08.11.2017 at about
9.40p.m., Smt. Sunita Shukla alongwith her colleague Smt.
Sunita Devi and Sh. Hari Shankar Shukla (her relative) was
returning from her work place at Plot No. 47, Creative Chain
Implex Sec DFL Area, Faridabad and while they were crossing
the road, alleged offending vehicle, driven in rash and negligent
manner and at a high speed, came from the side of Delhi and hit
MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 2/23
the petitioner and her companion Smt. Sunita Devi, due to which
both of them suffered multiple injuries. They were immediately
rushed to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad by Sh.Hari Shankar Shukla
(brother-in-law of claimant) and on the next day, upon referral,
they were got admitted in Safdarjung Hospital. FIR in question
was registered on the basis of statement of Sh. Hari Shankar
Shukla. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed
before Ld. Ilaqa MM under Section 279/337/338 IPC & 146/196
MV Act.
Reply:
3. Notice of the claim petition was issued to respondents, in
response to which, written statements/ replies were filed by all the respondents.
4. In written statement/reply filed by R-1 & 2, reliance has been placed upon general defences asserting that accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of R-1.
5. In written statement filed by Insurance Company, it was stated that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license admitting however that alleged offending vehicle was insured in the name of Ms. Sujata Rani, covering the date of accident. Other general defences were also taken.
Issues:
6. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal vide order dated 30.04.2019 :
(i) Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 3/23 traffic accident on 08.11.2017, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 8CAD 0714 being driven by R1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP.
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
(iii) Relief.
Evidence:
7. Matter was then listed for petitioner evidence.
Petitioner/injured Sunita Shukla examined herself as PW1 and tendered her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She relied upon Original Case Sheet ( Ex.PW1/1), Medical Treatment Papers (Ex.PW1/2), Copy of Charge Sheet (Mark-A) and Copy of Aadhar Card (Ex.PW1/5).
8. PE was then closed vide order dated 26.04.2024 and matter was listed for RE, however, no RE led by any of the respondents and same was closed vide order dated 03.05.2024. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
9. Final arguments addressed by counsel for claimant as well as counsel for Insurance Company.
10. Ld. counsel for claimant argued that accident was result of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. Ld. Counsel for insurance company conceded that vehicle was validly insured and prayed that matter may be decided on merits as per evidence.
11. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, my issue-wise findings are as under:-
MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 4/23Issue no. 1 "Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 08.11.2017, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 8CAD 0714 being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP."
12. What is required to be ascertained is whether rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle was responsible for injuries sustained by injured.
13. It has been held in catena of cases that negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable (support drawn from the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corportaion & Ors. [(2009) 13 SCC 530], Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, (2001 ACJ 421 SC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana reported as [2009 ACJ 287].
14. It is settled that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him as observed by Hon'ble High Court of India in the case of Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310. In the present case also, driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident.
15. PW-1 testified in her evidentiary affidavit that while she was returning from her work place alongwith her colleagues, MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 5/23 Sunita Devi and Hari Shankar Shukla, she was hit by speeding offending vehicle while she was in the process of crossing the road. She was put to cross examination by counsel for Insurance Company wherein she denied the suggestion that accident occurred due to her own negligence.
16. FIR was registered on the same day of accident on the statement of Hari Shankar Shukla, who is brother-in-law of the claimant and was present at the spot of accident. In his statement given to police, he narrated the mode and manner of the accident. He also stated that driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot after causing the accident, however its number plate broke and fell down at the spot which was handed over to IO. After the accident, claimant as well as other injured persons were taken to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad, Haryana, where they were medically examined and given treatment. As per Medical Legal Report of the said hospital, claimant arrived at hospital at 22.00 hrs. on 08.11.2017, which corroborate the version of complainant as well as the claimant. Notice under Section 133 of M.V. Act was given to respondent No.2 who disclosed that respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. In his affidavit, claimant alleged that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 chose not to cross-examine the complainant. Other person Sunita Devi, who sustained injuries in the same accident, has filed separate Claim Petition for compensation, wherein in her evidentiary affidavit, she has also affirmed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Thus, it is evident that the driver of the offending vehicle MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 6/23 was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner thereby hit the pedestrians. There is no other conclusion possible but to hold that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent and unmindful of the safety of the other commuters on the road and drove rashly in contravention to the basic duty of care while driving on a public road, thereby causing accident on account of which two persons sustained injuries. Accordingly, there is nothing which does not fit in to the narrative and therefore, puts the factum of accident in doubt.
17. Further, respondent No.1 did not adduce any evidence to divulge details about mode and manner of accident. It settled that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him as observed by Hon'ble High Court of India in the case of Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310. In the present case also, driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident.
18. As such, in view of the above analysis of material on record, evidence proved on record, charge-sheet against respondent no.1 and that respondent no.1 did not appear in witness box, he is held to have driven offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on the scales of preponderance of probabilities.
19. The issue No.1 is decided accordingly, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 7/23Issue No.2 "Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP"
20. Section 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 8/23
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct."
21. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that the process of determining which two injured persons sustained injuries. the compensation by the court is essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science. Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
22. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These general principles have been stated and reiterated in several decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683] .
23. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 9/23 duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.. ..."
24. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 10/23 compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
25. Certain principles for delineating just compensation were enumerated in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Following observations are relevant in the context:
"40.General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 11/23 (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 12/23 easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages-- Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/ disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability--Item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case."
26. It is settled proposition of law as held in catena of judgments that "just compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to face their lives.
27. In her evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW1/A, claimant has stated that she was employed with Creative Chain Impex Sec, Plot No.47, DLF Area, Faridabad, Haryana earning Rs.20,000/- per month. She has also placed on record salary slip for the month of Octobe 2017, as per which, her salary was Rs.11,591/- and her designation was "Hand Work" in Finishing Department. After the accident, she was taken to BK Hospital, Faridabad and then to MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 13/23 Safdarjung Hospital, where she received treatment. Ld. Counsel for claimant stated that claimant had to take leave due to accident and suffered financial loss. Considering that the injuries sustained were grievous in nature, which would have taken considerable time to get heeled, loss of income for three months is being granted.
28. Having regard to the law as also discussed above regarding compensation, in the present case award amount is calculated as under:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : No Rs. 5,000/-
Medical Bills filed and treatment was
undertaken from BK Hospital, Faridabad (Haryana) and Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : No bill Rs. 5,000/- for conveyance has been filed and she was taken to BK Hospital and thereafter took treatment from Safdarjung Hospital several times.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : There Rs.5,000/- is no prescription for special diet.
By guess work, compensation can be awarded for special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant :
Even in the absence of documentary Rs.5,000/- proof, compensation for attendant's charges is to be given even if services were rendered by family members.
(v) Loss of income : Rs.34,773/-
As per salary slip for the month of
October 2017 (Rs.11,591/- x 3)
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if NA
applicable) :
MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 14/23
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : NA
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Compensation of mental and physical Rs.10,000/-
shock : The injured is bound to suffer
pain and anxiety on account of impact of accident.
(ii) Pain and suffering : Compensation Rs. 10,000/-
for pain and suffering is to be awarded keeping in mind the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner.
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : The Nil
nature of injuries is simple
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Nil
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and N/A nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A expectation of life span on account of disability :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning N/A capacity in relation to disability: As already discuss above.
(iv) Loss of future Income: N/A
(v) Future medical expenses Nil
Total Compensation Rs.74,773/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation after deduction Rs.74,773/-
Interest As directed
below
29. It may be noted that in the judgment of Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no.MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 15/23
433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022 it was noted regarding rate of interest:
"25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for the applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding principles for the grant of interest. In Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148, the following was held while interpreting section 171 of the MV Act, 1988:-
Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc. into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the MV Act 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of the law. Interest liability is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor Sec. 4-A(3) of Workmen's MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 16/23 Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing are of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal of the High Court as indicated above."
30. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, including in the case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27 July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case from the date of filing of DAR till realization.
Liability :-
31. Ld. counsel for insurance company has not disputed that the offending vehicle was duly insured on the date of accident, however, it has taken a plea that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for claimant stated that driver possessed a valid driving license and pointed out to copy of DL placed on record. Perusal of driving license reflects that it was issued on 19.08.2013 and was valid upto 18.08.2023, while accident occurred on 08.11.2017, as such, it is clear that driving license was valid and effective on the date of accident. Hence, contention of Ld. Counsel for insurance company is rejected. Since there is no other statutory defence, therefore, such principal award MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 17/23 amount/compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization. (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount).
32. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING, A/c No. 00000042706870765, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir along with calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
33. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors , whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 18/23Apportionment:-
34. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
35. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 19/23 to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semi literate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 20/23 examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice....."
36. In this background of legal position, it may be noted that in present case, accused suffered injury and incurred expenses including on medical expenses, special diet, conveyance. Further, in the considered view of this Tribunal, the purpose of such MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 21/23 Award is to compensate the petitioner for the financial loss already sustained that is to reimburse the same, in the same manner in which he would have otherwise earned.
37. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the above-said guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, entire award amount of Rs.74,773/- along with interest, be released to the petitioner/injured in his bank account near his place of residence as per rule/ directions.
FORM -VI-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 08.11.2017 2 Name of injured Sunita Shukla 3 Age of the injured 45 years 4 Occupation of the As per record.
injured 5 Income of the injured Rs.11,591/- per month 6 Nature injury Grievous 7 Medical treatment As per record.
taken by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 22/23 9 Whether any No. permanent disability?
38. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be also sent to the DLSA and Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
39. Put up on 12.08.2024 for compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
on 09.07.2024 SHELLY by SHELLY
ARORA
ARORA Date: 2024.07.09
16:45:22 +0530
(Shelly Arora)
PO (MACT)-02, South-East Distt.
Saket Courts, New Delhi
MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 23/23