Delhi District Court
Devender Kumar Sharma vs . Rinku & Ors. Page 1 Of 48 on 27 February, 2023
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 1 of 48
IN THE COURT OF MS. JASJEET KAUR, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
New No.4982018
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010081312018
Sh. Devender Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Bhrigu Nath Mishra @ Raghu Nath Mishra,
R/o A147, Kushak No.2,
Kadipur, Delhi.
........ Petitioner/claimant
Vs.
1. Sh. Rinku S/o Sh. Sohanbir,
R/o H.No. 223, Gali No.5,
Ambedkar Nagar,
Haiderpur, Delhi.
......Driver/R1
2. Sh. Sohanbir S/o Sh. Ramchander,
R/o H.No. 223, Gali No.5,
Ambedkar Nagar,
Haiderpur Delhi.
......Owner/R2
3. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited,
402403, G.D. Tower,
NSP, New Delhi.
......Insurance/R3
.......... Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION :11.10.2010
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT :27.02.2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :27.02.2023
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 1 of48
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 2 of 48
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI
Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 28.05.2010
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 11.10.2010
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 11.10.2010
investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Not mentioned in the
before the Metropolitan Magistrate DAR
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 11.10.2010
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 11.10.2010
Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 11.10.2010
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed N/A
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the N/A
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by 11.10.2010
the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld.
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 2 of48
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 3 of 48
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Counsel for the
insurance co.
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance N/A
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the Not fairly computed
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of
the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the N/A
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of 31.05.2011
the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 27.02.2023
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to 24.05.2019
open saving bank account (s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar
Card and the direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this effect on the
passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 28.04.2022
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) As mentioned above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Sh.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC Devender Kumar
Code Sharma, saving bank
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 3 of48
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 4 of 48
a/c No.39261069591
with SBI, Rohini Courts
Complex, Delhi
IFSC : SBIN0010323
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) is Yes
near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the Claims 110002427,
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be SBIN0010323, SBI,
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order dated Rohini Courts, Delhi
18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO
842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim proceedings have emanated from a Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) filed on 11.10.2010 with reference to FIR No.119/2010 registered at PS Mahendra Park for the commission of offences of causing hurt to Sh. Devender Kumar Sharma by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road punishable U/s 279/337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) wherein subsequent charge sheet for the alleged commission of offences of causing simple hurt to victim Devender Kumar Sharma by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road by use of a forged and fabricated driving licence as genuine punishable u/s 279/337 and 468/471 of IPC against one Rinku was also filed. The learned Predecessor Court had treated the DAR filed by the IO as a petition u/s 166(4) of M.V. Act vide order dated 11.10.2010.
2. The brief facts of the case as discernible from the DAR and the documents of victim Devender Kumar Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 4 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 5 of 48 injured/the petitioner/the claimant) are that on 28.05.2010, victim Devender Kumar Sharma was going to Azadpur for some work on his bicycle and upon reaching at Sindhu Petrol Pump on Grand Trank Karnal Road (hereinafter referred to as GTK Road), suddenly a tempo bearing registration No.DL1LJ 7626 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, namely, Rinku Panchali S/o Sh. Sohanveer (hereinafter referred to as the driver of the offending vehicle/ respondent no.1/R1) had hit against bicycle of the victim due to which cyclist Devender Kumar Sharma had fell down on the road and had sustained injuries for treatment of which he had been taken by public persons to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as BJRM Hospital) Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where he was medically examined vide MLC No.10358/2010 mentioning therein that patient was conscious but disoriented with his both eyes blackened and after Xray of skull the victim was referred to surgery and medicine department for further treatment. Thereafter, the victim/petitioner was removed to ESI Hospital. However, as the petitioner was required to be treated in neuro surgery department, therefore, he was shifted to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi vide CR No.21658 where he had remained admitted with effect from 28.05.2010 and was discharged therefrom on 10.06.2010 after undergoing FTP goniotomy surgery with removal of contution haemotoma, Subdural Hematoma (SDH) and decompression on 31.05.2010.
3. R1/Rinku Panchal S/o Sh. Sohanveer, who was the driver of the offending vehicle and Sh. Sohanveer S/o Sh. Ram Chander, who was the owner of the offending vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the respondent no.2/R2) had filed their joint written statement wherein it had been stated that R1 had not caused any accident or injuries to the victim as alleged and the vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LJ7626 make Mahindra Champion was standing near Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 5 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 6 of 48 Sindhu Petrol Pump from where R1 had noticed that the petitioner was lying on the road near the petrol pump under the influence of alcohol. However, the petitioner had in connivance with the police officials deliberately implicated above mentioned Mahindra Champion vehicle being driven by R1 in the case accident with a motive to claim compensation. It had been further averred in the written statement of R1 and R2 that R1 was having a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of occurrence of the case accident and the insurance policy of the offending vehicle issued by Shriram General Insurance Company Limited was live and valid for the period commencing from 28.05.2010 and expiring on 27.05.2011 and therefore the liability, if any, to pay compensation to the victim was of R3/insurance company of the offending vehicle.
4. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.3/R3) had filed its reply/objections to FIR No. 119/2010, wherein it had been submitted that as per the documents collected/sealed and verified by the investigating officer of the case from the issuing authority, it could be safely concluded that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LJ7626, make Mahindra Champion was driving the same with the forged and fabricated driving licence and therefore the insurance company had no liability to compensate the victim. It had been further claimed in defence of the insurance company that injured Devender Kumar Sharma was himself under the influence of alcohol at the time of occurrence of the case accident and therefore the insurance company had no liability to indemnify the insured or any other person on behalf of the insured.
5. From the pleadings of the parties/DAR, the following issues were framed by the learned Predecessor of this court vide order dated 25.04.2012: (1) Whether on 28.05.10 at about 11:50 am at GTK Road, near Sindu Petrol Pump, Mahendra Park, Delhi vehicle no.DL1LJ7626 which Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 6 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 7 of 48 was being driven rashly and negligently and hit Sh. Devender Kr. And caused injuries to him? OPP (2) Whether DL of driver of the offending vehicle was forged and fake? OP driver and owner.
(3) Whether injured is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(4) Relief.
6. After the framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties to prove their respective versions of the case by leading evidence in support of the same. The petitioner had examined only one witness, namely, Smt. Saroj, who was the wife of the victim/petitioner in support of his version of the case. No other witness had been examined by the petitioner.
7. R1 and R2 had preferred not to examine any witness in their defence whereas R3/insurance company had examined one witness in support of its version of the case, that is, Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Suraj Kumar, Legal Officer, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, 1001, Ground Floor, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi.
8. I have heard the final arguments addressed by Sh. M.P. Nagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. V.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the insurance company/R3. R1 and R2 had failed to appear in the court for addressing final arguments despite the fact that several opportunities were granted to them for addressing final arguments. Even otherwise, they had already been proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.12.2022. My issuewise findings based on my appreciation of the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective versions of the case are reproduced herein below.
9. Issue wise findings are as under: Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 7 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 8 of 48 ISSUES No. 1 (1) (1) Whether on 28.05.10 at about 11:50 am at GTK Road, near Sindu Petrol Pump, Mahendra Park, Delhi vehicle no.DL1LJ7626 which was being driven rashly and negligently and hit Sh. Devender Kr. And caused injuries to him? OPP The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioners/claimants.
9.1 The petitioner/claimant had examined only one witness, namely, Smt. Saroj, who was the wife of the victim/petitioner by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein she had reiterated the facts narrated in the DAR by stating that on 28.05.2010, her husband/Devender Kumar Sharma was going to Azadpur for some personal work on his bicycle and upon reaching at Sindhu Petrol Pump at GTK Road suddenly the offending vehicle, which was being driver rashly and negligently by R1 had hit against the bicycle of her husband due to which her husband had fell down on the road and had sustained injuries for treatment of which he had been taken by public persons to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where he was medically examined vide MLC No.10358/2010. She stated that thereafter her husband was removed to ESI Hospital. However, since the case of her husband was such that her husband was required to be treated in neurosurgery department, therefore, her husband was further shifted to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi vide CR No.21658 where her husband had remained admitted with effect from 28.05.2010 and was discharged therefrom on 10.06.2010 undergoing surgery of the head on 31.05.2010 which did not benefit her husband much and her husband had become mentally disabled on account of injuries sustained in the case accident. She further stated that she had spent more than Rs. 3,00,000/ on treatment of her husband and had Rs. 50,000/ each on his conveyance and special diet prescribed to him by the Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 8 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 9 of 48 treating doctor. She relied upon the following documents: a. Photocopy of educational certificates of the injured Ex.PW1/1. b. Photocopy of her election identity card Ex.PW1/2. c. Photocopy of election identity card of the injured Ex.PW1/3. d. Photocopy of aadhar card of the injured Ex.PW1/4.
e. Photo copies of medical documents of her injured husband mark 'A'. f. Photocopy of disability certificate of the injured mark 'B'. 9.2 In her crossexamination by Sh. V.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the insurance company/R3, PW1 admitted that she was not an eye witness of the case accident. She voluntarily stated that she was at her native village at District Chapra, Bihar at the time of occurrence of the case accident. She denied the suggestion that no such accident had taken place with the vehicle no. DL1LNJ 7626. She stated that she had reached Delhi on the next day of the accident. She deposed that she had never visited the spot of accident. She further deposed that she did not know anything about the manner of the accident and the number of the offending vehicle. She stated that she had filed all the documents regarding the expenses incurred on treatment of her husband on record. She denied the suggestion that disability assessed by the board did not have any relation with the injuries sustained by her husband in the alleged accident. She further denied the suggestion that the injured was not employed for gain or that he was not earning any amount as on the date of the accident. She denied the suggestion that injured had not suffered any loss of earning capacity due to the case accident. She further denied the suggestion that no amount had been incurred by her on the treatment, conveyance and special diet of her injured husband or that medical bills filed by her on record were forged and fabricated. She expressed her inability to recollect the date of birth of her injured husband. She denied the suggestion that her affidavit and documents Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 9 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 10 of 48 were false and fabricated.
9.3 None had appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 to crossexamine PW1 and accordingly the crossexamination of PW1 was treated as nil on behalf of R1 and R2 despite opportunity having been given to them to crossexamine PW1. 9.4 No other witness had been examined by the petitioner in support of his case.
9.5 R1 and R2 had preferred not to examine any witness in their defence whereas R3/insurance company had examined one witness in support of its verision of the case, that is, Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Suraj Kumar, Legal Officer, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, 1001, Ground Floor, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi.
9.6 Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Suraj Kumar, Legal Officer, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, 1001, Ground Floor, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi of the insurance company had been examined as R3W1 by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A wherein he had reiterated all the averments made in the reply/objection to the DAR. He deposed that notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC had been issued by the insurance company to R1 and R2 for the purpose of calling upon them to produce the original insurance policy of the offending vehicle and the valid and effective driving licence of R1. He had relied upon the following documents in support of his testimony: a. Office copy of the notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC Ex.R3W1/1 of dispatch of notice U/o XII Rule 8 of CPC to the addresses of R1 and R2.
b. Two postal receipts Ex.R3W1/2 and Ex.R3W1/3. c. Certified copy of the insurance policy along with package policy
endorsement schedule in respect of the offending vehicle Ex.R3W1/4. d. D.L verification report already on record as part of DAR Ex.R3W1/5.
e. Authority letter issued in his favour by authorising him to depose in the
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 10 of48
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 11 of 48
present matter Ex.R3W1/6.
9.7 Sh. M.P. Nagar, learned counsel for the petitioner had not availed the
opportunity given to him by the court to crossexamine R3W1. None had appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 for crossexamining R3W1 and therefore the crossexamination of R3W1 on behalf of R1 and R2 was treated as nil despite opportunities having been granted to them in this regard. 9.8 No contradictions or material discrepancies have appeared in the cross examination of PW1 Smt. Saroj to discredit her testimony which were capable of demolishing the case of the petitioner to the effect that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 and the injuries sustained by victim Devender Kumar Sharma had occasioned therefrom. Although, PW1 was not an eye witness in the present matter, however, she has categorically stated that the case accident had occurred due to negligence of R1 and her deposition to that effect stands corroborated from the DAR filed by the IO in which R1 had been shown as the driver of the offending vehicle which was responsible for causing the accident in question. It is unfortunate that eyewitness Devender Kumar Sharma S/o Late Sh. Bhrigunath Sharma could not step into the witness box due to his mental disability allegedly occasioned from the injuries sustained in the case accident to depose about the rashness and negligence of R1 resulting in occurrence of the case accident. Besides, another eye witness, namely, Sh. Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh, R/o C66, DDA Flats, Punjabi Basti, Jahangir Puri, Delhi has also not stepped into the witness box as he was never summoned by the victim/petitioner and his family members in this court. However, his two statements U/s 161 Cr. PC recorded by the IO during investigation are on record wherein he has categorically stated that he used to sell vegetables on footpath near Sindhu Petrol Pump and used to remain present at his handcart of vegetable with effect from 08:00 am to 10:00 pm. He Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 11 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 12 of 48 had further stated in his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC that on 28.05.2010 at about 10:30 am, he had noticed that a Mahindra Champion vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LJ7626 being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed coming from the side of Bypass had hit against a bicycle from its side and thereafter he along with his associate, namely, Jagdish had apprehended the driver of the offending Mahindra Champion and after lifting the unconscious victim of case accident from the spot of occurrence, they had shifted him to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. Thus, the statement U/s 161 Cr. PC made by eye witness Sh. Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh recorded by the IO during investigation can be used for the purpose of corroboration of other evidence led by the petitioner. In such circumstances, nonexamination of an eyewitnesscuminjured Devender Kumar Sharma and independent eye witness Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh is not fatal to the case of the petitioner particularly when statement of independent eye witness Manjeet Singh, recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC is part of the charge sheet and DAR filed by the IO in which R1 has been named to be the person responsible for causing the case accident.
9.9 Moreover, mechanical inspection report of the offending Mahindra Champion vehicle has been filed on record as part of the DAR and a perusal of the same reveals that the front bumper and body of the offending tempo was slightly scratched from left side. However, the engine, brake system, steering wheel system, headlight and horn of the offending vehicle were in working condition and the said offending vehicle was found to be fit for road test during its mechanical inspection.
9.10 Thus, from a perusal of the mechanical inspection reports of the offending vehicle involved in the accident, it is prima faice evident that the said vehicle had sustained fresh damages on its front left side thereby leading this Court to a conclusion that the offending vehicle had hit the bicycle of the victim from front Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 12 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 13 of 48 left side. Moreover, the offending vehicle was seized from the spot of occurrence of the case accident itself and therefore as such R1 cannot claim that the said vehicle was neither present at the spot nor involved in the case accident.
9.11 It is trite law that in Motor Accident Claims Cases the standard of proof is not as strict as the standard of proof to be adopted in criminal matters and non examination of eye witness before the Tribunal cannot be treated as fatal in a claim for compensation in respect of road traffic accident particularly when DAR has been filed by the IO naming therein the driver of the offending vehicle as the culprit responsible for causing the accident in question by his rash and negligent driving. A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a benevolent legal entity created for the benefit of the victims of road traffic accidents and the evidence brought on record before the said tribunal by the accident victim or his family members has to be evaluated on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities and not on the scale of beyond reasonable doubt.
9.12 In the context, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decided case of Sunita vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 166/2019, date of decision 14.02.2019 that non examination of eye witness in the proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the petitioner particularly when there was sufficient evidence on record to establish that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had inter alia held as follows: "It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 13 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 14 of 48 had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases."
9.13 It was further held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case of Sunita (Supra) as under: " Similarly the issue of non examination of the pillion rider, Rajulal Khateek, would not be fatal to the case of the appellants. The approach in examining the evidence in accident claim cases is not to find fault with non examination of some "best" eye witness in the case but to analyse the evidence already on record to ascertain whether that is sufficient to answer the matters in issue on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. This court, in Dulcina Fernandes (supra), faced a similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eye witness was discarded by the Tribunal and the respondent was acquitted in criminal case concerning the accident. This court, however, took the view that the material on record was prima facie sufficient to establish that the respondent was negligent. In the present case, therefore, the Tribunal was right in accepting the claim of the appellants even without the deposition of the pillion rider, Rajulal Khateek, since the other evidence on record was good enough to prima facie Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 14 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 15 of 48 establish the manner in which the accident had occurred and the identity of the parties involved in the accident."
9.14 Similar observations were made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Dayal Singh and Ors MACT Appeal No. 419/2010 decided on 7th March, 2013 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had upheld the award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal based on police record and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. made by the eye witness. The observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para 15 of the judgement are noteworthy in this context and are reproduced below: "15 In view of the above position, while relying upon the police record and the statement of Surender Pal Singh recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that an Eicher Truck bearing No.DL1M 1098, the offending vehicle was involved in the accident.
Resultantly, the claimants/ respondents had proved the negligence on the part of the driver."
9.15 It was similarly held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Pushpa Rana and Ors. MAC App. No.360/2007 decided on 20.12.2007 that the certified copy of criminal case record including charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, certified copy of FIR, recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle relied upon by the petitioners were sufficient proofs to arrive at a conclusion regarding negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle because the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act were not akin to a civil suit and as such strict rules of evidence were not supposed to be followed in such proceedings. Relevant extract of observations made in the said judgement is reproduced as Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 15 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 16 of 48 under: "The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal; 2007 (5) SCALE 269. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (I) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
9.16 In another case decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as New India Assurance Company Vs Smt. Sakshi Bhutani and Ors. MACT App. No.550/2011 decided on 2nd July, 2012 it had been similarly reiterated that Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 16 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 17 of 48 negligence was not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a MACT case and a certified copy of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. supported by the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle were sufficient to depict the manner in which the accident in question had occurred. Relevant extract of observations by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the said case of New India Assurance Company Vs. Sakshi Bhutani is reproduced herein below: "Admittedly, she was not an eye witness to the accident. Possibly she could not have deposed as to the manner of the accident. At the same time, she placed on record the certified copy of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., copy of the FIR, copy of the site plan, mechanical inspection report, arrest memo of the driver, etc. Mere filing of a criminal case may not necessarily be proof of negligence on the part of the person accused of an offence. However, while dealing with a petition under Section 166 of the Act, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts are required to analyse the evidence produced as proof of negligence. Admittedly, negligence is not required to be established beyond reasonable doubt as is expected to be done in a criminal trial. A certified copy of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. depicted the manner of the accident which was supported by the mechanical inspection report in respect of offending vehicle No.HR47D3785 and Scooty No.HR51 AB7654."
9.17 In the light of afore cited opinions expressed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decided case of Sunita vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, (Supra), as well as the opinion expressed by the Hon'ble High Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 17 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 18 of 48 Court of Delhi in the decided cases of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Dayal Singh Ors (Supra), National Insurance Company Limited Vs Shri Mati Pushpa Rana and Ors. (Supra), New India Assurance Company Vs Smt. Sakshi Bhutani and Ors. (Supra), it can be safely concluded that the proceedings before the MACT cannot be rejected merely on account of non examination of eye witness by the petitioner and even if the eye witness turns hostile in a connected criminal case resulting in the passing of a judgment of acquittal in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle then also the MACT can arrive at a finding of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle on the basis of other reliable evidence produced by the petitioner.
9.18 In the facts and circumstances of the present case despite non examination of eye witnesscuminjured Devender Kumar Sharma himself and other independent eye witness Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh by the petitioner, the charge sheet filed in FIR No. 119/2010 of PS Mahindra Park for the commission of offences punishable U/s 279/337 and 468/471 IPC against R1 in the Criminal Court can also be relied upon by this court for the purpose of corroboration of other evidence led by the petitioner in support of their version of the case. Even otherwise, statement of eye witness Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh recorded by the IO during investigation U/s 161 Cr. PC is part of the charge sheet and in the said statement, eye witness Manjeet Singh has categorically stated that on 28.05.2010 while selling vegetables on his handcart at the footpath near Sindhu Petrol Pump he had noticed that at about 10:30 am, a Mahindra Champion vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LJ7626 being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed coming from the side of Bypass had hit against a bicycle from its side and thereafter he alongwith his associate, namely, Jagdish had apprehended the driver of the offending Mahindra Champion and after lifting the unconscious victim of case accident Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 18 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 19 of 48 from the spot of occurrence, they had shifted him to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. Thus, the statement U/s 161 Cr. PC made by eye witness Sh. Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh as recorded by the IO during investigation can be used for the purpose of corroboration of other evidence led by the petitioner. In such circumstances, nonexamination of an eyewitnesscum injured Devender Kumar Sharma and independent eye witness Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh is not fatal to the case of the petitioner particularly when statement of independent eye witness Manjeet Singh, recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC is part of the charge sheet filed by the IO in which R1 has been named to be the person responsible for causing the case accident in DAR filed by the IO.
9.19 Also, the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle showing fresh damages sustained by the said vehicle on its front left side body and bumper can be used to lend credence to the petitioner version of the case to the effect that the case accident had occurred due to collision of left front side body of the offending vehicle against the bicycle of the victim and can thus lead this Tribunal to a finding to the effect that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. The copy of site plan and seizure memo of the offending car are also on record as part of the charge sheet, which primafacie establish that the offending vehicle was seized by the IO from the spot of occurrence itself. In such circumstances, there is sufficient material on record in the charge sheet to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the case accident.
9.20 The issue no. 1 is only to be proved by claimant beyond preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt. In view of above said discussion, criminal case record including charge sheet filed against R1, it has been proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident had been caused by R1 who was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 19 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 20 of 48 negligent manner at the above said date, time and place and had hit the same against the motorcycle of the victim and thereby causing the injuries sustained by the victim/petitioner Devender Kumar Sharma.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
10. Issue No. (2) Whether DL of driver of the offending vehicle was forged and fake? OP driver and owner.
The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities was upon the driver and owner.
10.1 In this context, a perusal of copy of the charge sheet filed by the IO as part of DAR reveals that IO had duly mentioned in the charge sheet that during investigation upon verification of the driving licence of R1 from the concerned Licencing Authority, Kanpur, it was found that driving licence bearing no.5570P106 dated 09.11.2006 had never been issued in the name of R1 and as such the driving licence of R1 was forged and fabricated. Accordingly, the investigating officer had also added offences punishable U/s 468/471 IPC, that is, forgery of document and use of forged document as genuine against the driver of the offending vehicle in the present matter. Moreover, IO has placed on record a copy of the report received from Licencing Authority, Kanpur Nagar and the same has been proved on record as Ex.R3W1/5 by R3W1/Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Suraj Kumar, Legal Officer as a witness of the insurance company. A perusal of the said report reveals that the concerned Licencing Authority, Kanpur Nagar had catergorically stated in its report that D.L No.5570P106 dated 09.11.2006 had not been issued by the office of Licencing Authority, Kanpur Nagar and no such licence number had been issued in favour of any person by the name of Rinku. The said report Ex.R3W1/5 primafacie Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 20 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 21 of 48 establishes that R1 was in fact using a forged and fake driving licence as genuine for the purpose of driving of the offending Mahindra Champion vehicle. 10.2 Thus, in view of the charge sheet filed against R1 for the commission of offence the use of forged and fabricated licence as genuine continaing report of Licencing Authority, Kanpur Nagar regarding fake nature of the licence of R1 prima facie leads this court to a finding that the driving licence of R1 was a forged and fabricated document/license.
Hence, issue no.2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against R1 and R2 by arriving at a finding that licence of R1 was forged and fabricated document.
11. Issue No.3 (3) Whether injured is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioner.
11.1 In view of my findings in issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1 resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation in respect of medical expenses, conveyance expenses, special diet charges, etc. incurred by him. I shall now examine the entire evidence led by parties including the documents of the petitioner for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled.
11.2 Smt. Saroj, wife of the petitioner has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein she had reiterated the facts narrated in the DAR by stating that on the relevant date and time, while her husband was going towards Azadpur for some personal work on his bicycle and upon reaching at Sindhu Petrol Pump on GTK Road suddenly the offending vehicle, which was being Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 21 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 22 of 48 driver rashly and negligently by R1 had hit against the bicycle of her husband due to which her husband had fell down on the road and had sustained injuries for treatment of which her husband had been taken by public persons to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where he was medically examined vide MLC No.10358/2010. She stated that thereafter her husband was removed to ESI Hospital. However, the injuries sustasined by her husband required treatment in neuro surgery department, therefore, her husband was further referred to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi vide CR No.21658 where her husband had remained admitted with effect from 28.05.2010 and was discharged therefrom on 10.06.2010 after undergoing surgery of the head on 31.05.2010 which did not benefit her husband much and her husband had become mentally disabled on account of injuries sustained in the case accident. She further stated that she had spent more than Rs. 3,00,000/ on the treatment of her husband and Rs. 50,000/ each on his conveyance and special diet prescribed to him by the treating doctor.
Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation:
12. Medical Expenses.
12.1 PW1 Smt. Saroj had deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein she has claimed Rs. 3 lacs as compensation towards medical expenses incurred by her on treatment of her husband in respect of injuries sustained by her husband in the case accident. She has, however, placed on record medical bills towards procurement of medicines inpatient treatment taken by her husband at Sant Hospital and diagnostic procedure undergone by her husband during his treatment agreegating to the tune of Rs.88,727.36/. The said bills are original and do not appear to have been reimbursed from any mediclaim policy/government department etc. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded Rs. 88,727.36/ as compensation under this head towards medical expenses Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 22 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 23 of 48
13. Special Diet and Conveyance 13.1 PW1 Smt. Saroj had deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein she has claimed Rs.50,000/ each as compensation towards procurement of special diet for her husband during his treatment as well as towards expenses incurred on transportation or conveyance of her husband for the purpose of his visits to various hospitals and other clinics during his treatment period. 13.2 The petitioner has, however, not placed on record any documentary evidence in the form of prescription of special diet issued in the name of the petitioner by any doctor or dietician as well as by placing on record his transport bills and bills for purchases made by him towards special diet such as nutritional supplements, liquid diets or high protein deit etc. In such circumstances, the requirement of special diets including nutritional supplements faced by the petitioner during his treatment period and the expenses incurred by him on the same as well as the expenses incurred by him on his conveyance have to be determined in accordance with the nature of injuries sustained by him. 13.3 In this context, a perusal of the MLC of petitioner bearing No. No.10358/2010 reveals that the petitioner was conscious but disoriented at the time of his first examination at BJRM Hospital and his both eyes were blackened. After Xray of the skull, the petitioner was referred to surgery and medicine department for further treatment. The petitioner was removed to ESI Hospital. However, as the case of the petitioner required treatment in neuro surgery department, therefore the petitioner was further referred to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi vide CR No.21658, where the petitioner had remained admitted with effect from 28.05.2010 and discharged therefrom on 10.06.2010 after undergoing FTP goniotomy surgery with removal of contution haemotoma, Subdural Heamatoma (SDH) and decompression on 31.05.2010.
13.4 The petitioner has failed to file his followup treatment record of out patient
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 23 of48
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 24 of 48
department of any hospital and even the medical bills filed by the petitioner are only upto 29.06.2010. However, keeping in view the grievous nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner requiring 18 days of hospitalization of the petitioner in various hospitals as well as the surgery undergone by him on his head and the permanent disability suffered by him, this tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have remained under treatment due to injuries sustained in the case accident for a period of six months and this Tribunal is further of the opinion that petitioner must have been required to consume certain special diets including nutritional supplements or liquid diets or high protein diets etc. for his speedy recovery and he must have also incurred expenses on travelling to various hospitals during his treatment period. Accordingly, this tribunal deems it appropriate to award a lump sum amount of Rs. 60,000/ as compensation to the petitioner under this head including Rs. 30,000/ each towards special diet and conveyance respectively.
14. Attendant Charges 14.1 The testimony of PW1 Smt. Saroj is silent regarding the fact as to whether she had hired any professional medical attendant for care and lookafter of her husband during his treatment period or not. She has also not stated anywhere in her evidence by way of affidavit that she had provided gratituous services to her husband as his attendant or nurse during his treatment period. In such circumstances, the requirement of attendant by the petitioner for his care and lookafter during his treatment can be ascertained in accordance with nature of injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner. In this context, as already mentioned above the petitioner had been presented before the Medical Officer at BJRM Hospital in disoriented condition with blackened eyes and head injury and the said injuries had resulted in sustenance of 80% permanent neurological or mental disability by the petitioner with diagnosis of personality and behavioural Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 24 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 25 of 48 disorder due to brain disease, dementia, brain damage and brain disfunction. In such circumstances, the petitioner must have required assistance in his day to day activities including eating, bathing, walking, dressing up etc. 14.2 Moreover after considering the grievous nature of injuries sustained by the victim and the surgery undergone by him, this Tribunal has already computed the treatment period of the petitioner to be about six months and this Tribunal is of the opinion that during the treatment period of six months, the petitioner must have also incurred some expenses on availing services of such medical attendant.
14.3 In view of above said discussion regarding various injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as by computing the period of treatment of the petitioner to be about six months, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to award a lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/ as compensation to the petitioner under this head towards attendant charges.
15. Loss of future earning capacity due to disability 15.1 In this context, a perusal of the MLC of petitioner bearing No.10358/2010 reveals that the petitioner was conscious but disoriented at the time of his first examination at BJRM Hospital and his both eyes were blackened. After Xray of the skull, the petitioner was referred to surgery and medicine department for further treatment. Thereafter, the petitioner was removed to ESI Hospital. However, as the petitioner was required to be treated in neuro surgery department, therefore, he was shifted to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi vide CR No.21658 where he had remained admitted with effect from 28.05.2010 and was discharged therefrom on 10.06.2010 after undergoing FTP goniotomy surger with removal of contution haemotoma, Subdural Hematoma (SDH) and decompression on 31.05.2010.
15.2 Also, as per the disability certificate of the petitioner mark B issued by Dr.
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 25 of48
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 26 of 48
Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, the petitioner had sustained 80% permanent neurological or mental disability by the petitioner with diagnosis of personality and behavioural disorder due to brain disease, demantia, brain damage and brain disfunction.
15.3 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent order in case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO 842/2003, date of order 09.03.2018 has inter alia held as follows: "6.4 The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, education and other factors.
6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps:
(i) The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The claimant is totally disabled, earning any kind of livelihood, or
b) Whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
c) Whether he was prevented all restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 26 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 27 of 48 continue to earn his livelihood."
15.4 In the above cited case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has in general dealt with the effect of permanent disability upon the earning capacity of a victim of road traffic accident. However, the case of the victim in the present matter pertains to mental or neuropshychological disability which generally effects the entire body of the victim and not any particular organ. The issue of neuropsychological or mental disability had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Salma Farheen & Ors., MACP Appeal No.633/12, decided on 20.02.2015 wherein the petitioner, an undergraduate student of St. Stephen College who was also pursuing a two years diploma course in Global Aviation and Hospitality Management from Air Hostess Academy Pvt. Ltd., had sustained moderate mental disability and was merely capable of taking care of herself as well as performing simple tasks, such as, working as a Peon but had become incapacitated to do complex transactions like travelling, undertaking money transactions or operating a bank account without assistance from others. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that a student of Air Hostess Academy could not have been compelled to work as a peon and after taking into account her mental disability, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that the petitioner had suffered 100% loss of her earning capacity. Relevant extract of observation made in para 13 of the judgement is noteworthy in this context and is reproduced herein below:
"13. Thus, from the testimony of the Doctor examined by Respondent no.1, particularly PW12 Dr. Vijender Singh, it is evident that Respondent no.1 who suffered moderate mental disability can now perform only simpler tasks, like she can eat, bath, rest etc. without any assistance from a third person. However, she cannot perform complex transactions Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 27 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 28 of 48 like travelling, money transactions, bank account operations etc. without any assistance. Although PW12 admitted that Respondent no.1 will be in a position to perform simpler task like that of a Peon but with her qualification and background when she wanted to become an Air Hostess and was midway in the goal, she cannot be compelled to work as a Peon. Taking into account the mental disability suffered by Respondent no.1 when she cannot perform complex things, it shall be assumed that her loss of earning capacity was 100% as against 90%. The loss of earning capacity thus, comes to Rs.41,22,000/ (Rs.20,000/ x 12 - Rs.11,000/ (Income Tax) x 18)"
15.5 In another similar case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein the petitioner had become mentally disabled to such an extent that her mental age had been reduced to that of a nine months old baby whose brain would not progress along with the growth in her body, the Hon'ble Apex Court had cautioned that the Courts should remain liberal in awarding compensation in such cases of mental disability. The relevant extract of observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 2 and 27 of the judgement passed in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and Ors., Civil Appeal No.735/2020, decided on 05.02.2020 are noteworthy in this context and is reproduced herein below:
"2. Dr. Chhabra (PW4), who was one of the members of the Board which issued the disability certificate (Ex.P6) stated that as per the assessment her I.Q. is less than 20% of a child of her age and her social age is only of a 9 month old child. This means that Kajal while lying on the bed will grow up to be an adult with all the physical and biological attributes which a woman would get on attaining adulthood, including menstruation etc., but her mind will remain of a 9 month old child. Basically, she will not understand what is happening all around her."
"27. One factor which must be kept in mind while assessing the compensation in a case like the present one is that the Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 28 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 29 of 48 claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot come back to court for enhancement of award at a later stage praying that something extra has been spent. Therefore, the courts or the tribunals assessing the compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability also, should take a liberal view of the matter when awarding compensation. While awarding this amount we are not only taking the physical disability but also the mental disability and various other factors. This child will remain bedridden for life. Her mental age will be that of a nine month old child. Effectively, while her body grows, she will remain a small baby. We are dealing with a girl who will physically become a woman but will mentally remain a 9 month old child. This girl will miss out playing with her friends. She cannot communicate; she cannot enjoy the pleasures of life; she cannot even be amused by watching cartoons or films; she will miss out the fun of childhood, the excitement of youth; the pleasures of a marital life; she cannot have children who she can love let alone grandchildren. She will have no pleasure. Her's is a vegetable existence. Therefore, we feel in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case even after taking a very conservative view of the matter an amount payable for the pain and suffering of this child should be at least Rs.15,00,000/."
15.6 In the light of above cited opinion expressed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decided case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Salma Farheen & Ors.(supra) as well as in the light of opinion expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and Ors., Civil Appeal No.735/2020, decided on 05.02.2020, it can be safely concluded that Courts must take a liberal view while awarding compensation to victims of road traffic accident who have sustained mental or neuropsychological disability as such a disability can have devastating effect on the earning capacity of the disabled victims.
15.7 In the present case, the petitioner suffered permanent neuro
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 29 of48
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 30 of 48
psychological disability to the tune of 80% due to the injuries sustained in the case accident. Although, the testimony of wife of the petitioner is silent about the nature of employment and income of her injured husband, however, she has stated in her evidence by way of affidavit that her husband was a well qualified person who had become incapable of even putting his signatures on any document/paper in the aftermath of injuries sustained in the case accident. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the earning capacity of the petitioner would have been adversely effected by his neuropsychological (personality and behavioural disorder). However, as such no doctor has been examined on behalf of the petitioner to establish that the mental faculties of the petitioner had become completely destroyed and he had become incapable of doing any kind of job or gainful employment and in such circumstances, this court has to presume that the earning potential of the petitioner had become impaired to a great extent although he may still have remained capable of seeking gainful employment to some extent.
15.8 For performing any job good mental faculties and full functionality of the brain are essential. Good cognitive abilities are essential for any person to efficiently do any kind of professional activity even labour work and in view of the 80% permanent mental disability suffered by him resulting in personality and behaviour disorder, the petitioner was likely to face difficulty in doing any job except under guidance and supervision of his employer. 15.9 In view of above discussion regarding injuries sustained by the petitioner with permanent mental disability, the functional disability of the petitioner and the effect of permanent mental disability on his actual earning/working capacity is taken as 50%.
15.10 Petitioner/PW1 Smt. Saroj has not disclosed anything about the nature of job and income of her husband. However, a perusal of the court record reveals Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 30 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 31 of 48 that IO had recorded a statement of injured Devender Kumar Sharma on 16.09.2010, wherein the injured had stated that prior to the case accident he was employed in Economic Transport Organization Limited, situated at 36/1, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi110026, where he was looking after the work of accounts. IO has also placed on record a copy of attendance advice of the above named organization with effect from 25.05.2010 to 31.05.2010 reflecting therein that the petitioner was absent from duties on 28, 29 and 31.05.2010, however, neither any salary slip or salary certificate of the petitioner has been filed on record by the IO nor the wife of the petitioner has placed on record any document pertaining to educational qualification or skill training, if any, under gone by the petitioner so as to facilitate a finding by this court regarding earning capacity of the petitioner based on his educational attainments. In such circumstances, it can be presumed that the petitioner might have worked as an unskilled labourer before his accident. As per Aadhar Card of the petitioner, he was a resident in care of Bhirgu Nath Mishra, 147, Kushak No.2, Kadipur, North West Delhi, Delhi 110036. In the said circumstances and discussion, the monthly income of the petitioner at the relevant time has to be calculated as per minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer in the National Capital Territory of Delhi as on the date of occurrence of the case accident, that is, on 28.05.2010, which was Rs. 5,278/ per month. The income of the petitioner is, accordingly, taken as Rs. 5,278/ per month. PW1 has filed copy of aadhar card of the petitioner in which the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 21.12.1969, whereas the date of occurrence of the accident was 28.05.2010. Accordingly, the petitioner was aged about 40 years, 5 months and 07 days.
16.Addition of Future Prospects 16.1 In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to addition of future prospects in her monthly income, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 31 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 32 of 48 Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 32 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 33 of 48
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied) 16.2 Reference is also made to the case of Sanjay Oberoi vs Manoj Bageriya, MAC APPEAL 829/2011 decided on 03.11.2017 & Prem Chand vs Shamim Husain & Ors, MAC.APP. 1003/2017 decided on October 11,2018 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
16.3 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Oberoi (Supra) after referring to the judgment of the constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017 granted element of future prospects of increase in the income in a case where the income of the petitioner was notionally assessed on the basis of minimum wages with functional disability @ 10%.
16.4 In the case in hand, the petitioner was a self employed person and thus while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
16.5 The age of the petitioner, as discussed above, in the present case was about 40 years, 05 months and 07 days and he was a self employed person. In Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 33 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 34 of 48 view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioner would be entitled to an addition of 25% to his established income as he was aged above 40 years but was less than 50 years at the time of his accident.
16.6 The monthly income of petitioner is thus calculated as Rs. 5278/ +25% of 1,319.5/ which comes to Rs.6,597.5/.
16.7 The age of petitioner at the time of accident was about 40 years 05 months and 7 days. In the said circumstances, the relevant multiplier has to be calculated as per the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298. As per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma case by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, multiplier of 15 is to be applied for computing compensation payable to a victim of Road Traffic Accident aged between 36 to 40 years whereas the multiplier of 14 is to be applied for a deceased victim of Motor Vehicular Accident aged between 41 to 45 years. However, in the present case, the victim Devender Kumar Mishra was more than 40 years of age but had not yet attained the age of 41 and therefore, the multiplier applicable to the case of victim has to be computed in terms of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Neelam & Ors, MAC.APP No.613/2012 decided on 26.11.2015 wherein the petitioner had similarly not completed the age of 41 years but was more than 40 years old at the time his demise. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that if the petitioner had completed the age of 41 years as on the date of accident or as on the date of his demise, then, the relevant multiplier applicable to his case would be '14' which is applicable in cases where the accident victims are aged between 41 to 45 years. However, since the petitioner was 40 years and a few months old, therefore, the petitioner had not yet attained the age of 41 and was entitled to compensation to Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 34 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 35 of 48 be computed by taking the multiplier of '15' applicable for accident victims aged between 3540 years. Relevant extract of observation made in para20 of the judgment is reproduced below in this context:
"As per the service book, the date of birth of the deceased HC Shri Bhagwan is 30.01.1970. He suffered injuries on 01.11.2010 and succumbed to those injuries on 08.11.2010. Thus, at the time of his death, he had not completed 41 years. The deceased HC Shri Bhagwan has left behind six dependents and as per Sarla Verma's case (Supra), deduction for personal and living expenses could be 1/4th, which has been done by the Tribunal and the multiplier to be applied, if the age of the deceased is between 36 to 40 years is '15'. If the age of the deceased is between 41 to 45 years, the multiplier applicable will be '14'. Here in this case, the deceased had not attained the age of 41 years at the time of his death, hence the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of '15'."
16.8 In two cross appeals decided by a common judgment by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Archana Devi and Others, MAC Appeal No.306/2013 and Archana Devi and Others vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, MAC Appeal No.618/2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had upheld the application of multiplier of 17 in case of a victim who was over 30 years of age but less than 31 years of age as on the date of occurrence of the accident in question. Relevant extract of observations made in paras 4 and 7 in the said judgment is reproduced herein below:
"4. The tribunal found that the date of birth of the deceased was 25.07.1980 and thus concluded that he was over 30 years but less than 31 years on the date of the accident and on which basis adopted the multiplier of 17. It calculated the notional income by adding 30% as the element of Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 35 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 36 of 48 future prospects of increase and on such basis computed the loss of dependency in the sum of Rs.30,88,484/. It added the nonpecuniary damages in the total sum of Rs.1,30,000/ and thus awarded Rs.32,18,484/ as the total compensation payable with interest.
7. Thus, the loss of dependency is recalculated with addition of 50% of future prospects considered. The total income in this view would be (1,86,334 x 150 divided by 100) Rs.2,79,501/. Deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, inasmuch as the deceased was survived by five dependent family members, the loss of annual dependency comes to Rs.2,79,501 x 3 divided by 4) Rs.2,09,626/. On the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency comes to (2,09,626 x 17) Rs.35,63,642/. This would mean the compensation needs to be enhanced by (35,63,64230,88,484) Rs.4,75,158/."
16.9 In the light of aforecited observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decided cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Neelam & Ors (supra), Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Archana Devi and Others(supra) and Archana Devi and Others vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, it can be safely concluded that when petitioner Devender Kumar Mishra has completed the age of 40 years and has not yet attained the age of 41 years, then, the multiplier applicable to the case of petitioner would be that of 15 which has been prescribed for the age ground between 3540 years by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation(supra). The compensation is accordingly assessed towards loss of earning capacity at Rs. 5,93,775/ (after rounding of Rs.5,93,775/) [(Rs.6,597.5//per month x12 months x 15 (age multiplier) x 50/100(functional disability)].
17. Loss of Amenities of Life.
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 36 of48
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 37 of 48
17.1 The MLC No.1035/2010 of the petitioner which is a part of the DAR
prima facie establishes that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries requiring 18 days of hospitalization and surgery of the head for its management. However, the petitioner had not fully recovered from brain damage ensuing from the injuries sustained in the case accident and he had sustained 80% permanent neurological or mental disability by the petitioner with diagnosis of personality and behavioural disorder due to brain disease, demantia, brain damage and brain disfunction which had impaired the functionality of his brain for his entire life time. 17.2 Accordingly, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner was infact deprived of enjoyment of life and its amenities and had suffered great hardship due to permanent disability sustained by him on account of the case accident. Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant a total compensation in the sum of Rs.60,000/ to the petitioner under the said head of loss of amenities of life.
18. Pain and Suffering 18.1 As per MLC of the petitioner bearing No.10358/2010, the petitioner was conscious but disoriented at the time of his first examination at BJRM Hospital and his both eyes were blackened. After Xray of the skull, the petitioner was referred to surgery and medicine department for further treatment. The petitioner was thereafter removed to ESI Hospital. However, as the petitioner was required to be treated in neuro surgery department, therefore, he was shifted to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi vide CR No.21658 where he had remained admitted with effect from 28.05.2010 and was discharged therefrom on 10.06.2010 after undergoing FTP goniotomy surgery with removal of contution haemotoma, Subdural Hematoma (SDH) and decompression on 31.05.2010. In Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 37 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 38 of 48 view of grievous nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have endured physical pain and mental agony during his treatmentcumrecuperation period. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/ is granted as compensation to the petitioner under the said head of pain and suffering.
19. Loss of Income 19.1 Petitioner/PW1 Smt. Saroj has not disclosed anything about the nature of job and income of her husband. However, a perusal of the court record reveals that IO had recorded a statement of injured Devender Kumar Sharma on 16.09.2010, wherein the injured had stated that prior to the case accident he was employed in Economic Transport Organization Limited, situated at 36/1, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi110026, where he was looking after the work of accounts. IO has also placed on record a copy of attendance advice of the above named organization with effect from 25.05.2010 to 31.05.2010 reflecting therein that the petitioner was absent from duties on 28, 29 & 31.05.2010. However, as already discussed above neither any salary slip or salary certificate of the petitioner has been filed on record by the IO nor the wife of the petitioner has placed on record any document pertaining to educational qualification or skill training, if any, under gone by the petitioner so as to facilitate a finding by this court regarding earning capacity of the petitioner based on his educational attainments. Accordingly, the income of the petitioner has already been computed on the basis of minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer in the area of NCT of Delhi at the time of occurrence of the case accident at Rs.5,278/ per month. Moreover, the period of treatmentcumrecuperation has also been determined in the case of the petitioner to be about six months. Therefore, loss of income of Rs.31,668/ (Rs.5,278/ x 6 months) is granted to the petitioner for six months.
20. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 38 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 39 of 48 petitioner thus comes to Rs.9,14,170.36/ which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/ 2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 60,000/
3. Attendant Charges Rs. 30,000/
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 88,727.36/
5. Loss of income Rs. 31,668/
6. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 60,000/
7. Loss of future earning capacity due to Rs.5,93,775/ disability Total Rs. 9,14,170.36/ After rounding of Rs.9,14,171/ (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fourteen Thousand One Hundred and Seventy One only) 20.1 In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) of the back the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present claim petition/DAR had been instituted on 11.10.2010 and the rate of interest on fixed deposits in nationalized banks had fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case also this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. w.e.f 11.10.2010 till realisation of the compensation amount. 20.2 The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
21. Liability 21.1 It has been argued on behalf of Shriram General Insurance Company Limited/R3 that R1/Rinku was driving the offending vehicle without any valid and Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 39 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 40 of 48 effective driving licence and the licence produced by R1 during invesrtigation of the present matter was found to be forged and fabricated as per the verification report of the said licence received by the IO from Licencing Authority, Kanpur Nagar. The said report has also been proved on record by the witness of insurance company, namely, Ashok Kumar Sharma, who has been examined as R3W1 and has proved the report of Licencing Authority, Kanpur Nagar on court record as Ex.R3W1/5. Insurance company/R3 has accordingly prayed for grant of recovery rights against R1 and R2.
21.2 Besides, a perusal of the chargesheet also reveals that as per the investigation conducted by the IO, R1 was using a forged and fabricated driving licence as genuine at the time of accident and the penal provision of section 468/471 IPC has also been invoked against him in the chargesheet filed in the criminal Court.
21.3 Thus, in the present case, it is shown on record that Respondent no. 1 was not having a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of occurrence of the case accident, yet the insurance company/R3 is under statutory obligation to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner/claimant and it can very well recover the said amount from R1 Rinku/driver R2/Sohanvir, that is, owner of the offending vehicle as per rules. R3/Insurance co. would thus be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner but are granted recovery rights against R1 and R2.
21.4 Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., R3/Shriram General Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 40 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 41 of 48 date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
22. Statement of wife of petitioner on behalf of the petitioner in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 28.04.2022 regarding his savings bank a/c with endorsement of MACT claims SB A/c, no loan, cheque book & ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner and Ld. counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: 22.1 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, said statement of the petitioner/injured and clause 32 of MCTAP regarding protection of the award amount, it is hereby directed that on realization, an amount of Rs. 1,14,171/ be released to him in his MACT Claims SB A/c no.39261069591 with State Bank of India, District Court Rohini Complex, Delhi as per rules, that is, the branch near his place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD) so that the maximum benefits can be availed by the Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 41 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 42 of 48 petitioner. In case, the MACAD scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be kept in 70 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 70 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
22.2 The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant (s) through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003. However, till the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue inconvenience, the fixed deposits shall be subject to following conditions:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 42 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 43 of 48
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
23. Relief 23.1 As discussed above, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited/R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 9,14,171/ with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, 11.10.2010 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by the insurance co./R3 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which R3/insurance co. shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner would not be entitled to interest vide order dated 24.07.2018 with effect from 13.07.2016 to 17.08.2019, that is, for a period of 3 years, 01 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 43 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 44 of 48 month and 04 days. R3/Insurance co. would thus be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner but are granted recovery rights against R1 and R2.
23.2 R3/insurance co. is also directed to place on record the proof of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimant and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today. 23.3 A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no.3/insurance co. for compliance within the granted time.
23.4 Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (02222741336/9414048606) {other detailsPersonal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
23.5 A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 44 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 45 of 48 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of wife of the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner was also recorded on 28.04.2022 wherein she stated that petitioner was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that he would submit form 15G so that no TDS is deducted.
24. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR)
On 27th February, 2023 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 45 of48
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 46 of 48
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 28.05.2010
2. Name of injured: Devender Kumar Sharma
3. Age of the injured: About 40 years 05 months and 07 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: Minimum wages
5. Income of the injured: 5,278/
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: About 6 months.
8. Period of hospitalization: 18 days.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: Yes. 80%
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.88,727.36/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.30,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.30,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.30,000/
(v) Loss of income Rs.31,668/
(vi) Any other loss which may require any N/A special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 46 of48
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 47 of 48
(I) Compensation for mental and physical N/A
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.60,000/
(iv) Disfiguration N/A
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
hardships, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 80% nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation N/A of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity 50% in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X Rs.5,93,775/) [(Rs.6,597.5// %Earning capacity X Multiplier) per month x12 months x 15 (age multiplier) x 50/100(functional disability)]
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.9,14,171/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7%
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs.5,94,058.71 (rounded of Rs.5,94,059/) after seizing the interest for the period Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 47 of48 Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 48 of 48 with effect from 13.07.2016 to 17.08.2019.
17. Total amount including interest Rs.15,08,230/
18. Award amount released Rs.1,14,171/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.13,94,059/
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) clause 29 of MCTAP
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 27.03.2023 (Clause 31) Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR) On 27th February, 2023 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Rinku & Ors. Page 48 of48