Delhi District Court
Deepak Sharma vs Jasveen Kaur Saluja on 4 November, 2023
THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR : JUDGE (MACT)-01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-00720-2022
MACT No. 37/2022
FIR No. 530/2021
PS-Patel Nagar
U/s-279/337 IPC
Sh. Deepak Sharma (injured)
S/o Sh. Kishan Dev Sharma
R/o D-34/2, Indrapuri, Loni, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
Presently R/o D-13/10, Indrapuri,
Block D, Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh-201102.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Ms. Jasveen Kaur Saluja (Driver)
W/o Sh. Charandeep Singh Saluja,
R/o H. No. 16/2, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi.
2. Sh. Charandeep Singh Saluja (Owner)
S/o Sh. Joginder Singh Saluja,
R/o H. No. 16/2, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi.
3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Flat No. (2H, 2I, 2V and 2Q) 2nd Floor,
DCM Building, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 13.01.2022
Judgment reserved on: 01.11.2023
Date of Award : 04.11.2023
MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 1 of 43
A W A R D:
1. In the present case, Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was
filed by the investigation agency on 13.01.2022 in terms of the
provisions of Motor Vehicle Act regarding a Road Traffic Accident,
which took place on 14.10.2021 at around 11:35 AM, in front of
House No. 16/2, East Patel Nagar, Delhi wherein the petitioner
Deepak Sharma had sustained grievous injuries, with vehicle i.e. car
bearing registration No. DL-10CE-2557, driven by respondent no. 1
Jasveen Kaur Saluja, owned by respondent no. 2 Charandeep Singh
Saluja and insured with respondent no. 3 Cholamandalam MS
General Insurance Company Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The brief facts as emerged from the DAR are that the petitioner Deepak Sharma was working with Harindra Cargo Carrier Pvt. Ltd. On 14.10.2021, at about 11:35 AM, when Deepak Sharma was returning from the house of his employer on his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-13-SM-8904 and reached at Ahuja Nursing Home, in front of House No. 16/2 East Patel Nagar, Delhi, the respondent no.1 Jasveen Kaur Saluja was reversing her car bearing registration no. DL-10CE-2557 in a rash and negligent manner and struck her car with the motorcycle of Deepak Sharma, as a result of which he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Thereafter injured Deepak Sharma was taken to Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hospital by the respondent no.1 Jasveen Kaur Saluja, from where he was referred to Deen Dayal Upadhayay Hospital but due to lack of care in the said hospital, the family member of the injured shifted him to St. Stephen's Hospital, MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 2 of 43 where during treatment, the doctors of the said hospital found fracture in his right leg and implants were inserted in his leg and thereafter, on 19.10.2021, he was discharged from the said hospital.
2.1. During investigation, statement of injured Deepak Sharma was recorded. On the basis of statement of injured and inspection of MLC of the injured, offences u/s 279/337 IPC were found to be committed. Case FIR No. 530/2021, u/s 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Patel Nagar. Amit Sharma, brother of injured Sharma, produced the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-13SM-8904 make Passion Pro of black colour in the concerned PS along with its relevant documents and photocopy of driving licence of injured Deepak Sharma, which were taken into police possession. The MLC of injured was deposited in MRD of DDU hospital to obtain the opinion on the nature of injury sustained by him. Notice u/s 133 M.V. Act was given to Charandeep Singh Saluja, registered owner of the offending car bearing registration no. DL-10CE-2557, who on 01.11.2021 had given his reply and produced the offending car along with its relevant documents before the police, which was taken into police possession. The driver of offending car namely Jasveen Kaur Saluja (respondent no. 1 herein) was arrested, who produced her driving licence, which was taken into police possession. Mechanical inspection of both the aforesaid vehicles was got conducted. The relevant documents of both the said vehicles were also got verified from the concerned department, which were found genuine. The offending car No. DL-10CE-2557 was released on superdari. The nature of injury on the MLC bearing no. 8577/11297 of injured Deepak Sharma, was opined to be simple in nature. On MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 3 of 43 28.12.2021, place of occurrence was inspected and its rough site plan was prepared at the instance of the injured Deepak Sharma. On completion of investigation,charge-sheet for the offences u/s 279/337 IPC was filed against respondent no. 1 Jasveen Kaur Saluja before the concerned Magisterial Court, whereas DAR was filed before this Tribunal on 13.01.2022.
2.2. On 03.03.2022, a common written statement/ reply to the DAR was filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 Jasveen Kaur Saluja (Driver) and respondent no.2 Charandeep Singh Saluja (Owner) wherein they claimed that they were falsely implicated in the present case. It was pleaded that offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-10-CE- 2557 was insured with respondent no.3 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company vide Policy No. TCH 97561767, valid from 28.07.2021 to 28.07.2022 and the driving license of the driver was valid and effective to drive the vehicle. It is further pleaded that there is absolutely no role of the respondents in the accident and the police official had impounded the said vehicle to falsely implead them in the present FIR.
2.3. On 21.02.2022, the respondent no.3 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company had filed a Legal Offer to the tune of Rs.15,000/- plus medical bills, but no response thereto was given by the petitioner.
ISSUES FRAMED
3. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 21.04.2022, this Tribunal had framed the following issues:
MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 4 of 43 i. Whether the injured/ petitioner Deepak Sharma had sustained Simple injury in Road Traffic Accident which took place on 14.10.2021 at about 11:35 AM in front of House No. 16/2, East Patel Nagar, Delhi? (OPP) ii. Whether the injuries were caused to the petitioner on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. DL-
10CE-2557 driven by respondent no.1 Jasveen Kaur Saluja? (OPP) iii. Whether the vehicle bearing no. DL-10CE-2557 was not involved in the alleged accident? (OPRs) iv. Whether injured / petitioner is entitled to compensation? If yes, to what extent? (OPP) v. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
4. After framing the issues on 21.04.2022, the case was listed for Petitioner's Evidence with directions that all the documents be placed on record by the injured within four weeks from the said date, list of witnesses be filed within six weeks and affidavits of evidence within four weeks thereafter. However, on 17.08.2022, the petitioner had not filed any list of witnesses nor any affidavit of evidence and did not appear before the Tribunal. Therefore, the evidence of the petitioner was closed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal. None was also present on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2 that day. Further, the respondent no.3 Insurance Company had also closed its evidence. However, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 had made a specific statement before Ld. Predecessor of Tribunal that the petitioner had handed over to him MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 5 of 43 his medical bills as well as the payment receipts which are collectively Ex.CX-1 and in addition to the Legal Offer of Rs.15,000/-, he is ready and willing for the payment of the additional medical bills in respect of which the receipts have been placed on record and that the Insurance Company had already filed its Reasoned/ Legal Offer on 21.02.2022, to which the petitioner not responded and had requested that since the petitioner having failed to respond to the Reasoned/ Legal Offer, therefore present inquiry may be Disposed Off in terms of Central Motor Vehicles Rules (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022. Final arguments were heard on behalf of respondent no.3 insurance company and thereafter an award was passed.
4.1. Being aggrieved with the order dated 17.08.2022, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was allowed vide order dated 10.03.2023 passed in MAC. APP.
No. 429/2022, titled as 'Deepak Sharma Vs Cholamandalam MS Gen. Ins. Co. & Ors.' and the impugned award dated 17.08.2022 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to this Tribunal for adjudication of the matter on merits. The relevant parts of said order are reproduced below:-
"13. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for adjudication of the matter on merits. The appellant will, however, ensure that his affidavits of evidence in terms of order dated 21.04.2022 are filed within four weeks. It is also made clear that before proceeding with the matter on merits, the learned Tribunal will decide the appellant's pending application praying for his MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 6 of 43 medical examination by a board for ascertaining the extent of his permanent disability. The parties will, therefore, appear before the learned Tribunal on 18.04.2023.
14. It is further made clear that in case the appellant has already received the amount under the impugned award, the same will be adjusted from the amount found payable to the appellant after a fresh award, in terms of this order, is passed by the learned Tribunal."
4.2. On 18.04.2023, it was also submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that he came to know about the aforesaid order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after about one week of passing of the said order and thereafter within four weeks, affidavit of evidence of petitioner was filed. An application seeking direction to the Medical Superintendent, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi, to examine the petitioner and issue permanent disability certificate, was moved on behalf of the petitioner. . Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 did not object to the filing of the said affidavit. The aforesaid application of the petitioner was allowed and medical Superintendent, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi, was directed to get the petitioner examined by a Medical Board for the purpose of ascertaining his orthopaedic/permanent disability, if any, and the extent of disability and to file his report within 15 days. Pursuant to said order, medical board opinion report qua disability of the petitioner was filed before this Tribunal on 04.07.2023, as per which, the petitioner has 21% disability in his right lower limb. Pursuant to notice, respondents no. 1 and 2 had also put in their appearance before this Tribunal on MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 7 of 43 04.07.2023.
EVIDENCE
5. The petitioner had examined himself as PW1 and Dr. Sanjay Yadav, In-charge Orthopaedics Department, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, 5, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, as PW2 in support of his claim. The petitioner's evidence was closed on 22.08.2023. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondents despite grant of opportunity. As such respondents' evidence was closed vide order dated 18.10.2023.
5.1. None of the parties had filed duly filled in Form XIV and therefore opportunity to file the same was closed.
5.2. Financial statement of the petitioner was recorded on 31.10.2023.
5.3. Final arguments have been heard.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3-insurance company and perused the record. Since none appeared on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 to address final arguments on 01.11.2023, therefore their opportunity for the same was closed.
6.1. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: Whether the injured / petitioner Deepak Sharma had sustained Simple injury in Road Traffic Accident which took place on 14.10.2021 at about 11:35 AM in front of House No. 16/2, East Patel Nagar, Delhi? (OPP) MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 8 of 43 Issue No.2: Whether the injuries were caused to the petitioner on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. DL-10CE-2557 driven by respondent no.1 Jasveen Kaur Saluja? (OPP) Issue No.3: Whether the vehicle bearing no. DL-10CE-2557 was not involved in the alleged accident? (OPRs) 6.2. All the above issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience involving common discussion. Onus of proving the issues no.1 and 2 was upon the petitioner and that of the issue no.3 was upon the respondents no.1 and 2.
6.3. The petitioner/PW1, in his affidavit of evidence Ex.
PW1/A, had stated in para no. 2, 3 and 4 as under:-
'2. That I say that on the unfortunate day of 14.10.2021, while I was returning back from the house of Employer/Boss situated at 31/23, East Patel Nagar, Delhi and was going towards my work place at 15/1, East Patel, Nagar, Delhi, on my motor cycle no. DL-13SM-8904 with due care and caution, at about 11:35 am when I reached near Ahuja nursing home in front of H. No 16/2 Patel, Nagar, Delhi, all of sudden an offending vehicle I.E Toyota car bearing registration No. DL- 10CE-2557, which was being driven by a lady driver in a rash, negligent and reckless manner, by violating traffic rules and regulations, by not observing proper look out, reversed her above said offending car all of a sudden in MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 9 of 43 fast speed and hit my Motor Cycle with great force. Due to the impact I along with my above said motor cycle fell down on the road and received serious/grievous injuries all over my body. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no. 1.
3. I say that immediately after the accident, I was removed to Srdar Ballav Bhai Patel Hospital Delhi by the said lady Driver of the said offending vehicle, however thereafter I was shifted to DDU Hospital, Delhi, in a precarious condition where the Doctors of the said hospital attended my injuries and MLC was prepared. Thereafter to avail better treatment I was removed to Sant Stephen Hospital, Delhi where I remained admit from 14/10/2021 to 19/10/2021. I also got my treatment from private Hospital/Doctors.
4. That due to the accident I have suffered multiple and grievous injuries including Reverse Oblique Intertrochonteric fracture (Rt) side and (Lt.) Scapula fracture and other injuries all over my body.
6.4. The petitioner had relied upon following documents in his evidence:-
i) Copy of my Aadhar Card Ex. PW1/1 (OSR).
ii) Copy of my PAN card Ex. PW1/2 (OSR)
iii) Copy of my driving licence Ex. PW1/3 (OSR)
iv)Original records qua my treatment including discharge summary MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 10 of 43 (running into 11 pages) Ex. PW1/4 (colly).
v) original medical bills (running into 18 pages) Ex.PW1/5 (colly).
vi) Copies of my educational certificate (running into 02 pages) Ex. PW1/6 (colly)
vii) Set of DAR Ex. PW1/7 (colly)
viii) original medical treatment record and original bills qua my medical treatment (running into 12 pages) Ex.PW1/8 (colly) (not objected to by the Ld. Counsels for the respondents.) 6.5. It is well settled that the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal are in the nature of inquiry. In Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors [(2009) 13 SC 530, [in Kaushnumma Begum and others V/s New India Assurance Company Limited, [2001 ACJ 421 SC [in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. cited as [2009 ACJ 287], it has been held that the 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.
6.6. The factum of accident and the identity of respondent no. 1 as driver of the offending vehicle stands proved from the testimony of PW1 Deepak Sharma. Nothing substantial was extracted in the testimony of PW1, to demolish his said evidence. Even otherwise, the petitioner was unknown to the respondent no. 1 prior to accident and admittedly had no prior enmity with the respondent no. 1 and hence it is MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 11 of 43 beyond comprehension as to why the petitioner will implicate the respondent no. 1 falsely, had he not been driving the offending vehicle. PW1 has denied the suggestion that the respondent no. 1 was not driving the offending vehicle or she was about to sit in her car when he was hit by another car and the respondent no. 1 as a humanitarian gesture, had merely taken him to the hospital for treatment. He has also denied the suggestion that there was no question of respondent no.1 being rash and negligent. Also in reply to notice U/s 133 Motor Vehicle Act, respondent no.2 (owner of offending vehicle) had admitted that at the time of accident, his wife Jasveen Kaur Saluja (respondent no. 1 herein) was sitting in the car and was about to reverse it and that he had produced the Car No.DL-10CE-2557 and the driver Mrs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja. Furthermore, as per the DAR, the respondent no. 2 had produced the offending car No. DL-10CE-2557, which was taken into police possession and respondent no. 1 was arrested. It further reveals that the offending vehicle was later on released on superdari to respondent no.2. Thus, the factum of accident and the identity of respondent no. 1 Jasveen Kaur Saluja as driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-10CE-2557, stands established.
6.7. PW1 Deepak Sharma has specifically deposed qua the driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-10CE-2557 by respondent no. 1 in a reckless, rash & negligent manner, who reversed the said offending vehicle all of a sudden in fast speed and hit his motorcycle with great force. The plea was taken by respondents no. 1 & 2 that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in the present case and that respondent no. 1 was not driving the offending vehicle on MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 12 of 43 the date of accident. However, both these respondents did not lead any evidence in their defence nor respondent no. 1 herself appeared in the witness box and as such adverse inference has to be drawn against them. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019, MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi
310. No convincing material has been brought on record by respondent no.1 to show that she was not rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle. From the testimony of PW1, it stands proved that respondent no.1 was rash and negligent, while reversing the offending vehicle. Furthermore, the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-10CE-2557, which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/7(Colly), reveals that there were fresh damages i.e. rear side bumper, right side small portion damaged, Rt side TL glass was broken and dickey door right side portion was damaged. In the cross- examination, PW1 has also stated that while reversing the offending car, the backside right portion of the said car had struck against him. The mechanical inspection of bike of PW1/petitioner bearing registration no. DL-13SM-8904, which is also part of DAR Ex. PW1/7 (colly) reveals that there were fresh damages i.e. front left side leg guard & gear shifter liver were damaged, front left side indicator light and right side MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 13 of 43 body parts and leg guard were scratched and the said vehicle was not fit for road test due to gear shifter liver damages. From the same and on the basis of the site plan, which is also the part of DAR Ex. PW1/7 (colly), the principle of res ispa loquitur squarely applies to the facts of the present case qua rashness and negligence on the part of respondent no.1 (driver) in causing the said accident. In this regard, reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of State of Orissa Vs Nalini Kumar Patnaik, 1989 ACJ 126 Orissa. Furthermore, in view of filing of DAR containing the charge-sheet for the offences u/s 279/337 IPC & other relevant documents against the respondent no. 1 and in terms of the judgment in the case of "National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana & Ors.", 2009 ACJ 287, Delhi, respondent no. 1 Jasveen Kaur Saluja (driver of the offending vehicle) is held to be negligent on the basis of preponderance of probability. From the DAR, it is also stands established that respondent no.2-Charandeep Singh Saluja was the registered owner of the offending vehicle, which was insured with respondent no.3-Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. vide Policy No. TCH/97561767, valid from 29.07.2021 to 28.07.2022. The factum of said insurance is also admitted by the respondent no.3 insurance company.
6.8. The claim of the petitioner/PW1 is that after the accident, he was taken to Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hospital, Patel Nagar, New Delhi. In this regard, he is relying upon the MLC Ex. PW1/8 (colly), which reveals the alleged history of Road Traffic Accident due to collision of Bike and car @ (16/2 in front of Dr. Ahuja Nursing Home) @ 12:30 pm. It is further mentioned therein that the patient was brought MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 14 of 43 by Diwakar Mehta (ph. no. 9910201142). It further reveals that on local examination, there was injury to right leg with no external visible injury or bleeding, inability to move right leg, right foot was in inversion, there was swelling and tenderness. The MLC further reveals that ortho opinion was taken. The said MLC further reveals that Senior Ortho had also examined the patient on which there was inability to move right hip and on local examination, swelling and tenderness was present over right hip area (laterally), no open wound and no ANVD. It further reveals that x-ray of B/L hip with pelvis-AP view and right hip with thigh AP and lateral view was advised and patient was referred to higher centre for further management. It further reveals that patient was referred to DDU hospital for MLC and further management.
6.9. The MLC No. 11297/8577 of petitioner Deepak Sharma of DDU hospital, New Delhi, which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/7 (colly), reveals that the patient Deepak Sharma (petitioner herein) was referred from Sardar Vallabh Bhai hospital for further management and ortho opinion with alleged history of RTA 'as told by brought by' and on local examination there was tenderness over right thigh area and swelling and tenderness over right hip region. It further reveals that nature of injury was opined to be simple in nature. The x-ray report dated 14.10.2021 of Deepak Sharma of DDU hospital (part of Ex. PW1/7(colly)) reveals that no obvious bony injury was seen.
6.10. Further, the petitioner is relying upon the discharge summary of St. Stephen's Hospital Ex. PW1/4 (colly), as per which, the petitioner remained admitted there from 14.10.2021 till 19.10.2021. It MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 15 of 43 further reveals that the petitioner was diagnosed with reverse oblique intertrochonteric fracture right side and left scapula fracture. The discharge summary further reveals that the petitioner was given treatment for closed reduction (percutaneous assisted) and internal fixation using titanium PFN A2 (10 x 220, 95 MM Blade) done under SAB by Dr. A.K/SP on 16.10.2021. Further, the petitioner is relying upon the X-ray reports dated 29.12.2021, 11.05.2022, 16.06.2022 and 02.05.2023 Ex. PW1/8 (colly) of S. Stephen's Hospital. As per x-ray report dated 29.12.2021 of right hip joint with proximal femur-AP/Lat, orthopedic implant seen in situ in right femur, dated 11.05.2022 of right hip AP/Lat, it was a case of intertrochanteric femur fracture (post operative check x-ray) and orthopedic metallic implants in right femur, of dated 16.06.2022 of right hip with thigh-AP/Lat., orthopaedic implant seen in situ, no evidence of peri-implant lucency noted & visualized soft tissue under view appear normal and 02.05.2023 of right hip with thigh- AP/Lat, it is a follow up case of intertrochanteric fracture right femur.
6.11. Further, on 18.04.2023, an application seeking direction to the Medical Superintendent, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi, to examine the petitioner and issue permanent disability certificate, was moved on behalf of the petitioner, which was allowed and the concerned Medical Superintendent of Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi, was directed to examine the petitioner to assess his disability and to file his disability certificate. Pursuant to such order, the disability certificate bearing no. 1854 dated 12.06.2023 was received from the Office of Medical Superintendent, Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, 5 Rajpur Road, Delhi- 110054. As per the said certificate, the petitioner is a case of Loco IT MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 16 of 43 fracture of right femur and he is physically disabled and has 21% (Twenty One) permanent (physical impairment) in relation to his right lower limb. It is further mentioned that the condition of the petitioner is non progressive and is not likely to improve.
6.12. Further, the petitioner had examined PW2 Dr. Sanjay Yadav to prove the disability certificate Ex. PW2/A. As per the testimony of PW2, the petitioner has permanent disability of 21% in relation to right lower limb.
6.13. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 insurance company had argued that since the initial MLC of the petitioner from a government hospital had revealed no fracture to him and his injury was opined to be as simple, therefore, subsequent medical opinion as 'grievous' qua the nature of injury to the petitioner by St. Stephen's Hospital cannot be relied upon. However I do not find any force in the said argument of Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3. First of all, as per the initial MLC of the injured of Government Hospital, he was found to have injury over his right leg and it is very well possible that the concerned doctor may have misinterpreted his X-ray report to infer that there was no fracture. Since the petitioner was treated at St. Stephen's Hospital subsequently on the same day of accident i.e. 14.10.2021, hence there was no time for any kind of manipulation and furthermore the injury in the subsequent discharge summary of the petitioner of St. Stephen's Hospital, is on the same right leg, where the injury was opined in the initial MLC at the government hospital. Furthermore, St. Stephen's Hospital is a big private hospital, having its own credibility. In the absence of any MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 17 of 43 credible material to discard the medical treatment record of the petitioner qua the nature of injury from the said hospital, the same cannot be discarded or looked upon with suspicion. Coupled with the said nature of injury as 'grievous' from St. Stephen's Hospital, the petitioner's testimony with respect to the same, in the absence of any discrepancy qua the same or any other material which may create doubt in the mind of the Tribunal, makes this Tribunal accept the said nature of injury as credit worthy.
6.14. Thus it stands proved on record that the petitioner had suffered grievous injury i.e. fracture of right lower limb in the accident in question and has permanent disability of 21% in relation to said right lower limb.
6.15. Accordingly issues No. 1, 2 and 3 are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
7. Issue No. 4:Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?(OPP).
7.1. The onus of proving the above issue was upon the petitioner/injured.
7.2. The petitioner/PW1, in his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A, had stated in para nos. 3 to 8 as under:-
3. I say that immediately after the accident, I was removed to Srdar Ballav Bhai Patel Hospital Delhi by the said MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 18 of 43 lady Driver of the said offending vehicle, however thereafter I was shifted to DDU Hospital, Delhi, in a precarious condition where the Doctors of the said hospital attended my injuries and MLC was prepared. Thereafter to avail better treatment I was removed to Sant Stephen Hospital, Delhi where I remained admit from 14/10/2021 to 19/10/2021. I also got my treatment from private Hospital/Doctors.
4. That due to the accident I have suffered multiple and grievous injuries including Reverse Oblique Intertrochonteric fracture (Rt) side and (Lt.) Scapula fracture and other injuries all over my body.
5. That I have incurred about Rs.
2,00,000/- on my treatment etc., but some of the medical bills have been either misplaced or lost. I have also incurred about Rs. 50,000/- to Rs.
60,000/- on special diets and Rs.
40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- on conveyance.
I have also kept an attendant to look after me as I am still unable to perform my daily routine and I used to pay Rs.
10,000/- per month excluding lodging and foodings to the attendant.
6. That I was just 35 years at the time of accident and was having good health and physique prior to the said accident but due to the accident in question my whole life has been spoiled. Due to the injuries sustained in the above said accident my whole family dependent on my income which is worse than a hell to MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 19 of 43 me.
7. That prior to the accident I was doing private job in Harindera Cargo Carrier PVT. Ltd. at Patel Nagar and was earning appox. Rs. 25,000/- per month out of the said work/profession, but due to the accident in question I was not in the position to continue my work till date and suffered complete loss of earning.
8. That I have suffered permanent disability due to he accident in question, but the same is yet to be assessed by the board of doctors.
7.3. As already discussed in preceding paras, while deciding the issues no. 1, 2 and 3 that the petitioner had suffered fracture of right lower limb and he has permanent disability of 21% in relation to said lower limb.
7.4. The petitioner has claimed in his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A that he had incurred about Rs. 2,00,000/- on his treatment, but some of the medical bills have been either misplaced or lost. In this regard, the petitioner is placing reliance on discharge summary along with prescriptions qua medicines Ex. PW1/4 (colly), original medical bills Ex. PW1/5 (colly) and Ex. PW1/8 (colly). The details of said bills are as under:-
Table No. 1 Sr. Details of Bill Date Amount in
No. Rs.
MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 20 of 43
1. Discharge Bill No. 19.10.2021 33,848
012100655228 &
its receipt issued
by St. Stephen's
Hospital, Delhi
2. Receipt no. 14.10.2021 500
OP2105112705
issued by St.
Stephen's Hospital,
Delhi
3. Receipt no. 14.10.2021 2210
072102515955
issued by St.
Stephen's Hospital,
Delhi
4. Receipt No. 15.10.2021 500
072102516079 for
Covid-19 test
issued by St.
Stephen's Hospital,
Delhi
5. Medicine Bill no. 15.10.2021 1121.86
S3-CS-21-867248
issued by St.
Stephen's Hospital,
Delhi
6. Medicine Bill no. 15.10.2021 1722
S2-CS-21-079611
issued by St.
Stephen's Hospital,
Delhi
7. Medicine Bill no. 16.10.2021 212
0005821 issued by
Aastha Medicos,
Opposite St.
Stephen's Hospital,
Delhi
MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 21 of 43
8. Medicine Bill No. 16.10.2021 1620 0005838 issued by Aastha Medicos, Opposite St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi
9. Medicine Bill no. 17.10.2021 1711 0005848 issued by Aastha Medicos, Opposite St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi 10. Medicine Bill No. 18.10.2021 153 0005871 issued by Aastha Medicos, Opposite St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi
11. Medicine Bill no. 18.10.2021 1397 0005859 issued by Aastha Medicos, Opposite St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi 12. Receipt no. 09.11.2021 300 OP2105126724 qua revisit issued by St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi 13. Receipt No. 09.11.2021 350 012100397527 for Physiotherapy issued by St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi 14. Receipt No. 09.11.2021 350 232100085190 for MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 22 of 43 procedures & dressing treatment issued by St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi 15. Receipt No. 07.12.2021 350 122100246051 for Physiotherapy issued by St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi 16. Medicine Bill No. 09.11.2021 214 0006432 issued by Aastha Medicos, Opposite St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi
17. Receipt no. 2653 07.05.2022 Rs. 350/-
dated 07.05.2022 issued by Tyagi Diagnostic Centre qua X-ray
18. Receipt no. 11.05.2022 Rs. 300/-
OP2205226667 issued by St. Stephen's Hospital qua revisit
19. Receipt no. 15.06.2022 Rs. 300/-
OP2205247563 issued by St. Stephen's Hospital qua revisit
20. Receipt no. 15.06.2022 Rs. 500/-
232200107594 qua extremities, bones & Joints 2 MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 23 of 43 exposure issued by St. Stephen's hospital
21. Receipt no. 28.04.2023 Rs. 580/-
122300269710 issued by St. stephen's hospital qua qua extremities, bones & Joints 2 exposure
22. Receipt no. 28.04.2023 Rs. 300/-
OP2305439656 qua
revisit issued by St
Stephen's hospital
Total Rs. 48,888.86
(Round off to Rs. 48,889/-)
7.5. Besides aforesaid bills, the petitioner has also filed following bills on record, which were not got exhibited by him in evidence but taken on record, with no objection of Ld. Counsels for respondents, without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The details of said bills are as under:-
Table No. 2 Sr. Details of Bill Date Amount in
No. Rs.
1 Receipt no. 737 24.11.2021 Rs. 9,000/-
issued by Guru
Darshan
Charitable
Physiotherapy
Centre, GZB, qua
physiotherapy
MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 24 of 43
2. Receipt no. 729 25.10.2021 Rs. 9,000/-
issued by Guru
Darshan
Charitable
Physiotherapy
Centre, GZB, qua
physiotherapy
3 Receipt no. 08.02.2022 580
012200398624
issued by St.
Stephen's Hospital,
Delhi qua
extremities, bones
& joints exposure
4 Receipt No. 20.12.2021 580
232100090706
issued by St.
Stephen's Hospital,
Delhi qua
extremities, bones
& joints exposure
5 Receipt no. 08.02.2022 300
OP2205173648
issued by St.
Stephen's Hospital,
Delhi qua revisit
6 Receipt no. 28.12.2021 Rs. 300/-
OP2105154400
issued by St.
Stephen's Hospital,
Delhi qua revisit
7 Receipt no. 1905 24.03.2022 Rs.350
issued by Tyagi
Diagnostic centre,
Loni Ghaziabad
qua x-ray
8 Receipt no. 1817 14.12.2021 Rs. 750
MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 25 of 43
dated 14.12.2021
issued by HI-Tech
Diagnostic, Loni,
Ghaziabad qua X-
ray
Total Rs.
20,860/-
7.6. It is pertinent to mention here that the discharge summary Ex. PW1/4 (colly) clearly mentions that the injured/petitioner was admitted in the said hospital on the day of accident i.e. 14.10.2021 at 23:50:15 hours and the alleged history of 'RTA due to collision with a four wheeler today's noon' is mentioned therein, which proves that the subsequent treatment of the petitioner is in co-relation to his earlier treatment taken after the accident. Further, most of the bills filed on record by the petitioner are of St. Stephen's Hospital. Except for giving suggestion in the cross-examination that his subsequent treatment on the date of accident at St. Stephen Hospital showing grievous hurt to him, is manipulated one or is due to some subsequent injury after the accident, no contrary evidence has been brought by the respondent no. 3 insurance company on record nor the exhibition of said bills was objected to by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3. Furthermore, it is well settled that strict rules of evidence Act are not applicable in MACT Claim inquiry. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation for the bills mentioned in aforesaid Table No. 1 & Table no. 2 i.e. Rs. 48,889/- + Rs. 20,860/-=Rs. 69,749/-. However, he cannot be compensated for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- which was deposited by him at St. Stephen's Hospital vide receipt no. RC0721188656 dated 14.10.2021 as MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 26 of 43 advance. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner/ injured Deepak Sharma shall be entitled to Rs. 69,749/- towards medical expenses.
7.7. As regards the special diet, the petitioner had claimed that he had incurred a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- for the said purpose. However there is no document on record to show that the petitioner was advised any special diet nor he had filed any bill or document to show that he had incurred any such amount towards the special diet. However, keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner i.e. permanent disability of 21% of right lower limb, he must have required some special diet and must have incurred some amount towards the same. Therefore, a notional sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded under the head of special diet.
7.8. As regards the conveyance charges, the petitioner is claiming that he incurred a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- for the said purpose. In this regard, the petitioner has placed on record the receipts (part of Ex. PW1/5 (colly) & Ex. PW1/8 (colly) qua his visit to St. Stephen's hospital for subsequent treatment or for the purpose of physiotherapy. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had suffered fracture on right femur and had produced on record certain receipts qua his visit to St. Stephen's hospital, therefore he must have incurred some expenditure for the said purpose. As such, the petitioner is awarded a notional sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance.
7.9. The petitioner had further claimed that he had also kept an attendant to look after him as he is still unable to perform his daily MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 27 of 43 routine work and he used to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month excluding lodging and food to the attendant. However, the petitioner has not placed any document on record to show that he had incurred any expenditure for the said purpose. However keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, he must have required the assistance of an attendant. As such, a sum notional sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges.
7.10. Now coming to the aspect of loss of income, the petitioner Deepak Sharma claimed that he was working at Harindera Cargo Courier Pvt. Ltd. at Patel Nagar, Delhi, and war earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, but due to the accident in question he was not in a position to continue his work till date and suffered complete loss of earnings. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 insurance company had argued that the petitioner had deliberately concealed his employment and leave record as the same would have reflected that he had no loss of income and future prospects. Admittedly, the petitioner has not placed any original document qua his employment and salary, which fact has also been admitted by him in his cross- examination conducted on behalf of respondent no. 3 insurance company. He has only filed photocopy of his salary certificate. Only on that basis the employment or salary per month of the petitioner cannot be inferred specially after he chose not to summon any record qua his employment and salary during evidence on his behalf. However, the petitioner has filed the certificate of his Secondary School Examination, 2001 (compartmental examination July 2001) Ex. PW1/6 (Colly). Though the petitioner is a resident of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, but in MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 28 of 43 his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A, he had claimed that at the time of accident, he was doing private job in Harindera Cargo Carrier Pvt. Ltd. at Patel Nagar, Delhi (though petitioner had failed to prove on record his employment or salary proof), therefore the minimum wages for Unskilled Worker for matriculate person prevailing in Delhi at the time of accident on 14.10.2021 (i.e. Rs. 19473/-), is taken as income of the petitioner. Further, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the fact that he had visited the hospital for his treatment subsequently, I hold that the petitioner shall be entitled to the notional Loss of Income for 03 months i.e. 19,473 X 3 = Rs. 58,419/-.
7.11. Now coming to the aspect of Loss of Income on account of functional disability of the petitioner, during course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 insurance company argued that as per the X-ray report of the petitioner, which is part of Ex. PW1/7 (colly), no bony injury was seen in the X-ray of the petitioner. However, it stands established vide disability certificate Ex. PW2/A that the petitioner had suffered 21% (Twenty One Percent) Permanent disability in relation to right lower limb. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of 'Jithendran Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.', Civil Appeal No. 6494/2021 (Arising out of SLP © No. 13213 of 2019), date of decision: 27.10.2021 and 'Karthik Subramanian Vs B. Sarath Babu & Anr.', Civil Appeal Nos. 799-800 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP © No.s 11694-11695/2020), date of decision:-02/03/2021. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 29 of 43 'Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & Anr.', Civil Appeal No. 8981 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10383 of 2007), date of decision:-
18.10.2010 and considering the the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, I hereby hold that the percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to functional disability of the petitioner shall be taken as 10.5%.
7.12. As per the copy of Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1, the date of birth of the injured/ petitioner Deepak Sharma is 05.04.1985. Hence, as on the date of accident i.e. 14.10.2021, he was aged 36 years, 06 months and 09 days old. Accordingly, the Multiplier of Fifteen (15) is taken for purposes of calculating the loss of income of the petitioner (Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision:-31.10.2017). As already discussed in the preceding para that the petitioner had suffered permanent disability of 21% in relation to his right lower limb and it would certainly affect his working capacity to some extent. Hence while relying upon the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner shall also be entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40%.
7.13. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 19473/-. After applying the 40% future prospects, total income of the deceased will be Rs.
19473+7789/-= Rs. 27,262/-.
MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 30 of 43 7.14. In view of the above, the loss of Future Income on account of functional Disability is calculated as under:
Rs. 27,262/- x 12 x 15 x 10.5/100=Rs. 5,15,251.8/- (Round off: Rs. 5,15,252/-) 7.15. The petitioner/injured has claimed that he was just 35 years at the time of accident and was having good health and physique prior to the said accident but due to the accident in question his whole life has been spoiled and that due to the injuries sustained in the above said accident his whole family dependent on his income, had suffered a lot.
However, he had not claimed any amount under the head of "Loss due to Mental & Physical Shock" and "Pain & Suffering". Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner must have suffered some mental agony and "Pain & Suffering", therefore, a notional sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under each head of "Loss due to Mental & Physical Shock" & "Pain & Suffering" i.e. total Rs. 5,000+5000= Rs. 10,000/-.
7.16. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 69,749/- Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 10,000/- (notional)
Expenditure on Nursing/Attendant Rs. 10,000/- (notional) charges MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 31 of 43 Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 20,000/- (notional) Monthly income of injured Rs. 19,473/-
Loss of income of 03 months Rs.19,473/-x3= Rs. 58,419/-
Add future prospects @ 40 % 19,473/-+7789= Rs. 27,262/-
Loss of future income (income X % 27,262 x 12x15x10.5/100 Earning Capacity X Multiplier) =5,15,251.8/-
(round off: 5,15,252/-) Any other loss/expenditure Nil.
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 5,000+ Rs. 5,000/-
Suffering R. 10,000/- Loss of amenities Nil.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil.
hardship,disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 6,93,420/-
7.17. It is pertinent to mention here that Ld. Predecessor had passed an award on 17.08.2022, vide which, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,58,000/- (Rupees One Lal Fifty Eight Thousand only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 13.01.2022 till realization within 30 days from the said date, was awarded to the petitioner. As per order dated 11.11.2022, passed by the Ld. Predecessor in M. Ex. NO. 507/2022, titled as Deepak Sharma Vs Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors.', an amount of Rs. 1,65,142/- (with interest) had already been deposited by the MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 32 of 43 insurance company. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the award amount along with interest was deposited by the respondent no. 3 insurance company and the same was released to the petitioner, which has already been utilized by him. In view thereof, the amount of Rs. 1,65,142/- shall be deducted from the award amount of Rs. 6,93,420/- and after deductions (Rs. 6,93,420-1,65,142), the award amount comes to Rs. 5,28,278/-.
7.18. I may note that interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy reported in 2012 ACJ 48 (SC). In the interest of justice, it is held that claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 13.01.2022 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
8. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/ Tribunal 31.10.2023. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month.
8.1. Keeping in view the above, I hereby direct that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 5,28,278/-, Rs. 58,278/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred & Seventy Eight only) plus entire interest amount be released to the petitioner/claimant Deepak Sharma and the balance amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs & Seventy Thousand only) shall be put in 47 monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 33 of 43 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 47 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to the petitioner only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account in a bank near his residence with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
8.2. The above FDR(s) shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 34 of 43 allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. 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 claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.
8.3. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 14.10.2021
2. Name of the Injured: Deepak Sharma
3. Age of the Injured: Aged about 36 years
4. Occupation of the Injured: Not proved
5. Income of the Injured: Rs. 19,473/- (minimum wages)
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken Sardar Vallab Bhai Patel Hospital, Delhi.
DDU Hospital, Delhi.
St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi.
MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 35 of 43
8. Period of Hospitalization: 14.10.2021 to 19.10.2021
9. Whether any permanent 21% permanent disability in relation to right lower limb disability? If yes, give COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tri-
No. bunal 1. Pecuniary Loss: (i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 69,749/-
ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 10,000/- (notional)
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 10,000/- (notional) Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Rs. 20,000/- (notional) Conveyance
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 19,473/-
(vi) Loss of income of 03 Rs.19,473/-x3= months Rs. 58,419/-
(vii) Add future prospects @ 40 19,473+7,789= % Rs. 27,262/-
viii) Any other loss which may Nil.
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental
and physical shock Rs. 10,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil.
(iv) Disfiguration
Nil
MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 36 of 43
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, Nil inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability 21%
assessed and nature of permanent
disability as permanent or disability
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of 10.5%
earning capacity in relation (Ten point Five percent)
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - 27,262 x 12 x 15 x 10.5/100=
(income x % earning Rs. 5,15,251.8/-
capacity x Multiplier) (Round off:-5,15,252/-
4. Total Rs. 6,93,420/-
5. Total Compensation Rs. 6,93,420/-
Interest awarded 9%
(Rs. 62,407.8)
6 Earlier award amount Rs. 6,93,420-1,65,142
(which has already been
=Rs. 5,28,278/-.
received by the petitioner in
terms of previous award
passed by Ld. Predecessor)
MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 37 of 43 to be deducted from present award amount
6. Interest amount upto the Rs. 1,12,805/-
date of award ( 01 year 09 months and 21 days )
7. Total amount including Rs.8,06,225/-
Interest
8. Award amount released As mentioned in para no.
8.1.
9. Award amount kept in As mentioned in para no.
FDRs 8.1.
10. Mode of disbursement of As mentioned in para no.
the award amount of the 8.1.
claimant(s)
11. Next date for compliance of 08.12.2023
the award
Liability:
9. Since the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 Jasveen Kaur Saluja and the respondent no.2 Charandeep Singh Saluja is the Owner of the same, whereas the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., all shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
9.1. Issue No.4 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 38 of 43 Relief 10.1. The respondent no. 3-Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,28,278/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred & Seventy Eight only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 13.01.2022 with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant, failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
10.2. A copy of this judgment be given to respondent no. 3- Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. for compliance within the time granted. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
10.3. Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 08.12.2023 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
10.4. Copy of the award be also sent to the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).
MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 39 of 43 10.5. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (ASHUTOSH KUMAR) th Dated:- 4 of November, 2023 PO, MACT-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 40 of 43 FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 14.10.2022 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report 11.11.2021
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
to the victim(s) Not attached
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
from the Driver Not attached
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner Not attached
6 Date of filing of the Form-
V-Interim Accident Report 24.12.2021
(IAR)
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from Not attached
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VIII
- Detail Accident Report 13.01.2022
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the Not mentioned
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Yes.
MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 41 of 43 Company admitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No. part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer of 21.04.2022 the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 04.11.2023 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes.
savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank 13.01.2022 Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the 31.10.2023 claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account(s) near the place of their residence MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 42 of 43 alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card?
18 Permanent residential As per Award.
address of the claimant(s).
19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is Yes.
near their place of residence? 20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time Yes. The Financial Statement of passing of the Award to of the claimant was recorded ascertain his/their financial 31.10.2023 condition?
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) PO, MACT-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 04.11.2023 MACT No. 37/2022 Deepak Sharma Vs. Jasveen Kaur Saluja & Ors. page 43 of 43