Delhi District Court
Smt. Tara Wati Devi vs Chandan (Driver) on 11 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF DR. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 456/2019
CNR No. DLCT010087372019
Smt. Tara Wati Devi
W/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chand,
R/o AB416, Amar Colony,
Nabi Karim, Delhi.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Chandan (Driver)
S/o Sh. Daya Ram,
R/o H. No. G43, Ghazipur Village,
Delhi.
2. Suraj Bhan (Owner)
S/o Sh. Bhagwati Prasad
R/o H. No. G45, Ghazipur Village,
Delhi110096.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR: 05.07.2019
Arguments heard on: 02.02.2021
Date of passing of Award: 11.02.2021
AWARD
(1) The Detail Accident Report (DAR) has been filed on
05.07.2019 and has been registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition
in respect of the accident which took place on 27.06.2018 at 12.25 PM,
Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 1 of 27
Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU
KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:28:30
+0530
Metro Pillar No. 129, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi in which the
petitioner Smt. Tara Wati Devi had sustained Grievous Injuries.
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) The Facts in Brief as emerged from the DAR are that on 27.06.2018 at 12.25 PM the petitioner was going to meet her brother at BLK Hospital in a TSR bearing registration No. DL1RW8899. When they reached near Pillar No. 129, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi a Scooty bearing No. DL12SH9021 (Honda Activa) which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn came from Kothi No. 16/201 side and hit the TSR with a great force due to which reason the TSR overturned on its left side. As a result of the accident, the petitioner fell down on the road and suffered Grievous Injuries i.e. PolyTrauma, Fracture Right Proximal Humerus (3 Part), Fracture Distal 3 rd Left Ulna, Fracture Distal 3rd left Radius, Fracture Distal 3rd Left Humerus, lacerated wound left medial two fingers. The petitioner/ injured was taken to BLK hospital where she received treatment. (3) A detailed reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2 i.e. Driver & Owner wherein it is averred that the respondent no.1 was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. It is further averred that the respondent no.1 Chandan was standing outside the Kothi No. 16/201 to see the clean way of scooty bearing No. DL12SH 9021 whereas the TSR bearing No. DL1RW 8899 came from Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 2 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:28:45 +0530 its side in a very high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit the scooty which was standing on the road. It is further pleaded that the TSR lost its control and hit hard on the standing scooty and turned up with the passenger and hence, the injury caused to the passengers was only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the TSR. It is also averred that the claimant/ petitioner has not appeared before this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the Court when the respondents are not responsible for the alleged accident as the respondent no.1 was not driving the vehicle. It is also averred that the claimant / petitioner has not filed any document in respect of her earning; her qualification and nature of work she was doing. According to the respondents, the compensation claimed by the claimant/petitioner is highly exaggerated and without any basis. It is also averred that the driver of the TSR was not having valid driving license and badge for driving the TSR but the police officials had not made the TSR driver as accused, rather held the respondent no.1 liable for the accident. It is also averred that the present claim has been devised as a tool to harass the answering respondents thereby dragging them in a court and makes them undergo the rigorous of the prolonged frivolous litigations. According to the petitioner, the medical bills/ claim filed by the claimant/ petitioner is too much and exorbitant.
ISSUES FRAMED:
(4) On the basis of pleading of the parties, vide order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, the following issues were settled: Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 3 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:28:59 +0530 i. Whether the petitioner Tara Wati, sustained injuries in the road accident which occurred on 27.06.2018 at about 12.25 PM within the jurisdiction of P.S. Karol Bagh, Delhi?
ii. Whether the scooty no. DL12SH 9021 driven by Chandan was involved in the abovesaid accident?
iii. If so, whether the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the scooty No. DL12SH 9021?
iv. If the finding on issue no.1, 2 and 3 above in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled, and from whom?
v. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
(5) In order to prove her case the petitioner Tara Wati Devi has examined herself as her sole witness as PW1. On the other hand the respondents namely Chandan and Suraj Bhan have examined themselves as their witnesses as R1W1 and R2W1. (6) For the sake of convenience the testimonies of the various witnesses examined are put in tabulated form as under: S. Witness Deposition No. Petitioner / Injured
1. Smt. Tara Wati PW1 Smt. Tara Wati is the injured in the present case who (PW1) in her examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A has corroborated what has been earlier stated in the DAR. She has placed her reliance upon the following documents: Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 4 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:29:10 +0530
1. Medical treatment record which Ex.PW1/1 (Colly, 37 sheets).
2. Medical bills which are Ex.PW1/2 (Colly, 7 sheets)
3. Copy of PAN Card which is Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).
4. Copy of Aadhar Card which is Ex.PW1/4 (OSR).
5. Attested copy of DAR which is Ex.PW1/5 (Colly).
In her cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, the witness has deposed as under: That she had studied upto 10th Standard.
That on the date of accident, she was travelling alongwith her son namely Deepak in TSR to BLK Hospital where her brother was admitted.
That it was about 12.30 PM, when the accident took place.
That they had taken Auto Rickshaw from Paharganj for BLK Hospital and there was normal traffic on the road at the time of the accident.
That auto rickshaw was driven at a normal speed at the time of accident.
That she saw that the scooty rider hit the TSR. That the auto rickshaw was running on the right hand side of the road.
That she understands the meaning of right hand and left hand which she correctly demonstrated what is meant by the right hand side.
That she personally did not note down the number of the scooty but her son who was with her had told her about the same.
That nobody was sitting on the scooty.
That the driver of the scooty ran away from the spot after the accident.
That they were conscious at the time of accident and thereafter, they went to BLK Hospital where she was admitted for five days.
That her son arranged the funds for treatment.
Respondent's Evidence
2. Sh. Chandan R1W1 Chandan is the respondent no.1 in the present case (R1W1) who in his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.R1W1/A has corroborated what has been earlier stated in his reply.
Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 5 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:30:29 +0530
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the witness has deposed as under:
➢ That he had studied till 8 th class and know little bit of English.
➢ That his affidavit of evidence Ex.R1W1/A was prepared by his counsel at his instructions. ➢ That he was not having a driving license at the time of accident.
➢ That he knows that without license they should not drive the vehicles.
➢ That 34 months before the accident, he had learnt to drive the scooty.
➢ That he does not have any Learning License at the time of accident.
➢ That he has denied that he was driving the scooty bearing No. DL12SH9021 and has voluntarily explained that he was just standing outside the Kothi No. 16/201 where he had gone to some work but he was not driving the scooty at the time of accident. ➢ That he drove the said scooty from Karol Bagh to Kothi no. 16/201.
➢ That he was wearing a helmet when he was driving the scooty from Karol Bagh to Kothi No.16/201. ➢ That according to him, petitioner is not entitled to any compensation since he had not caused any accident.
➢ That he has been made an accused in FIR No. 311/2018, PS Karol Bagh, under Sections 279/337/338 IPC wherein he is also appearing. ➢ That he was also arrested in the criminal case where he was released on bail.
➢ That he has not filed any complaint to any higher authority regarding his falsely implication in the present case by the IO.
➢ That after the accident the police had seized the scooty.
2. Sh. Suraj Bhan R2W1 Sh. Suraj Bhan is the respondent no.2/ owner of the (R2W1) offending vehicle in the present case who in his examination inchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.R2W1/A has corroborated what has been earlier stated in his reply.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the witness has deposed as under:
Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 6 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:31:57 +0530 ➢ That he had studied till 10th class and know very little English.
➢ That his affidavit of evidence Ex.R2W1/A was prepared by his counsel and he does not know what is written in the same.
➢ That he was not present at the spot when the accident took place.
➢ That the scooty bearing No. DL12SH9021 belongs to him and he is the registered owner of the same. ➢ That Chandan is his nephew being the son of his brother.
➢ That on the day of accident, Chandan had taken the scooty without asking him after picking up the keys from his work place at Karol Bagh where he had come because being his nephew he did not stop him from taking the keys.
➢ That the scooty was taken into possession by the police and he had even gone to the court but till date the scooty is lying in a police station.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(7) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels for the petitioner and the respondents. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and also given my thoughtful consideration to their contentions. My findings on the various issues are under:
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner Tara Wati, sustained injuries in the road accident which occurred on 27.06.2018 at about 12.25 PM within the jurisdiction of P.S. Karol Bagh, Delhi?
(8) Onus of proving this issue was upon the petitioner. The case of the petitioner Smt. Tara Wati Devi is that on 27.06.2018 at 12.25 PM she was going to meet her brother at BLK Hospital in a TSR bearing Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 7 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:32:05 +0530 registration No. DL1RW8899 and when she reached near Pillar No. 129, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi a Scooty bearing No. DL12SH 9021 (Honda Activa) which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, rashly and negligently, came from Kothi No. 16/201 side and hit the TSR with a great force due to which reason the TSR overturned on its left side. According to the petitioner, as a result of the accident she fell down on the road and suffered Grievous Injuries. In this regard, the petitioner has placed her reliance upon the DAR and the medical documents filed by her.
(9) I have gone through the testimony of the various witnesses and the documents on record. The copy MLC of the injured Tara Wati forms a part of the DAR and it is evident from the same that the injured was brought to BLK Hospital on 27.06.2018 at 12:10 PM with alleged history of RTA near Rajendra Place Metro Station half hour back. Further, as per the Discharge Summary Ex.PW1/1 the petitioner/ inured had suffered the following injuries:
1. Polytrauma.
2. Fracture Right Proximal Humerus (3 Part).
3. Fracture Distal 3rd Left Ulna.
4. Fracture Distal 3rd Left Radius.
5. Fracture Distal 3rd Left Humerus.
6. Lacerated wound left medial two fingers.
(10) It is also evident from the Discharge Summary that the petitioner/ injured had suffered multiple fractures and following procedure was done:
Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 8 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:32:20 +0530
1. ORIF with PHILOS plate fixation right proximal humerus with bone grafting.
2. ORIF with extraarticular plate fixation left distal humerus.
3. ORIF with plate fixation left distal radius.
4. ORIF with plate fixation left distal Ulna.
5. Wound debridement left ring and little fingers done.
(11) The medical record of the petitioner/ injured which is Ex.PW1/1 shows that she was admitted in BLK Hospital on 27.06.2018 and was Discharged on 02.07.2018 and as per the opinion of the Doctors on the MLC, the nature of injuries were 'Grievous'. (12) This being the background, I hereby hold that the petitioner / injured Tara Wati had sustained Grievous Injuries in the road accident which took place on 27.06.2018 at about 12:25 PM within the jurisdiction of Police Station Karol Bagh, Delhi. (13) Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No.2: Whether the scooty no. DL12SH 9021 driven by Chandan was involved in the abovesaid accident?
Issue No.3: If so, whether the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the scooty No. DL 12SH9021?
(14) Both the issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience involving common discussion. Onus of proving both the Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 9 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:32:35 +0530 issues was upon the petitioner.
(15) The case of the petitioner is that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of Scooty bearing No. DL12SH9021 by the respondent no.1 Chandan. (16) On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the respondent no.1 Chandan was standing outside the Kothi bearing No. 16/201 to see the clean way of Scooty bearing No. DL12SH 9021whereas the TSR bearing No. DL1RW8899 came from its side in a very high speed and hit the scooty which was standing on the road and lost its control as a result of which the TSR overturned. (17) The petitioner Smt. Tara Wati Devi has examined herself as PW1 whereas the respondent no.1 Chandan has examined himself as R1W1 and the respondent no.2 Suraj Bhan has examined himself as R2W1. I have gone through the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the parties.
(18) I may note that the respondent no.1 Chandan has in his cross examination has duly admitted that he was not having any driving license at the time of the accident nor had any Learning License at that time. The witness Chandan (R1W1) has denied the suggestion that he was driving the scooty bearing No. DL12SH9021 and has explained that he was just standing outside the Kothi No. 16/201 where he had gone to some work but he was not driving the scooty at the time of the accident. He has, however, admitted that he drove the said scooty from Karol Bagh to Kothi No. 16/201 and was wearing a helmet when he was driving the scooty from Karol Bagh to Kothi No. 16/201.
Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 10 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:32:43 +0530 (19) In so far as the respondent no.2 Suraj Bhan (R2W1) is
concerned, he has in his crossexamination admitted that Chandan is his nephew being the son of his brother and on the day of accident, Chandan had taken the scooty without asking him after picking up the keys from his work place at Karol Bagh.
(20) The above crossexamination of both the respondents belies the claim of the respondents that the scooty was standing on the road. No explanation is forthcoming with regard to the presence of respondent no.1 Chandan near Kothi No. 16/201. As per the testimony of Suraj Bhan (R2W1) the respondent no.1 Chandan who is his nephew had taken the scooty from his work place at Karol Bagh. There is no answer to the question as to what Chandan was doing near Kothi No. 16/201 and the testimonies of both the respondent are silent on the above aspect.
(21) I have also gone through the site plan attached with the DAR which shows that the place of accident is almost middle of the main road towards Metro Station Rajendra Place which is shown at Point C in the site plan. This is contrary to the claim of the respondents that the accident had taken place while the scooty was standing on the road to mend his way.
(22) Further, I have perused the Mechanical Inspection Reports of the accidental as well as offending vehicle. The Mechanical Inspection Report of the TSR bearing No. DL1RW8899 shows that there were following fresh damages:
1. Front Mudguard dented.
2. Front Left side lower body dented.
Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 11 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:32:58 +0530
3. Left side body dented and scratched.
4. Left side foot board damaged.
5. Front fork bended.
(23) As per the Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending scooty bearing No. DL12SH9021 there were following fresh damages:
1. Front Bumper right side scratched & dislocated.
2. Front mudguard dented.
3. Front fork bended.
(24) The above Mechanical Inspection Reports coupled with the site plan confirms that the offending scooty had hit the TSR and caused the accident.
(25) It has also come on record that the respondent no.1 Chandan was not having any Driving License at the time of accident for which provisions of Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act have also been invoked against him and hence, there is a presumption that he was not aware of driving rules.
(26) In view of the above and also in view of the fact that the respondent no.1 Chandan has been chargesheeted as an accused in criminal case bearing FIR No.311/2018, PS Karol Bagh under Sections 279/337/338 IPC, I hereby hold that the accident was caused due to sole and rash negligent driving by the driver of the Scooty No. DL12SH9021.
Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 12 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:33:06 +0530 (27) Both the issues are accordingly decided in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No.4: If the finding on issue no.1, 2 and 3 above in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled, and from whom?
(28) The case of the petitioner Smt. Tara Wati is that she is aged 47 years and was working as a Labour. According to her, she had sustained Grievous Injuries in the accident in question and she had spent Rs.2,62,097/ towards medical expenses; Rs.25,000/ on conveyance and Rs.25,000/ on Special Diet. The petitioner is claiming loss of income for 12 months; Rs.2 lacs for mental & physical shock, pain and suffering; Rs.50,000/ towards loss of amenities of life and Rs.1 lac towards loss of earning. In total the petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs.8,78,849/ as compensation.
(29) I have considered the arguments advanced before me and the evidence on record.
(30) Coming first to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner. It stands established that the petitioner had sustained multiple fractures and the nature of injuries were opined as 'Grievous'. The petitioner has placed on record the Discharge Summary and various medical bills which are collectively Ex.PW1/1. The details of the medical bills attached along with the DAR and filed by the petitioner at the time of her evidence, are put in a tabulated form as under:
Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 13 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:33:16 +0530 Sr. Details of Bill Date Exhibit No. Amount in Rs. No.
1. Detail bill of BLK Hospital 02.07.2018 Filed along 2,45,362/
2. Cash bill of BLK Hospital 10.08.2018 with the 1,750/ DAR
3. Cash bill of BLK Hospital 28.07.2018 1,530/
4. Cash bill of BLK Hospital 11.07.2018 1,000/
5. Cash bill of BLK Hospital 10.09.2018 1,000/
6. Cash bill of BLK Hospital 11.07.2018 1,723/
7. Cash bill of BLK Hospital 18.07.2018 588/
8. Medicine bill of M/s. Krishna 03.07.2018 70/ Medisurg
9. Medicine bill of M/s. Amrit 03.07.2018 2,147/ Pharmacy
10. Medicine bill of BLK Hospital 05.07.2018 714/
11. Medicine bill of BLK Hospital 18.07.2018 879/
12. Medicine bill of BLK Hospital 11.07.2018 689/
13. Medicine bill of BLK Hospital 28.07.2018 416/
14. Medicine bill of A.S. Medicos 07.07.2018 240/
15. Medicine bill New Delhi 03.07.2018 520/ Medicos
16. Physiotherapy Bill from Guru 28.01.2019 Ex.PW1/2 150/ Harkrishan Hospital
17. Physiotherapy Bill from Guru 29.01.2019 Ex.PW1/2 150/ Harkrishan Hospital
18. Physiotherapy Bill from Guru 19.01.2019 Ex.PW1/2 150/ Harkrishan Hospital
19. Physiotherapy Bill from Guru 21.01.2019 Ex.PW1/2 150/ Harkrishan Hospital
20. Physiotherapy Bill from Guru 15.01.2019 Ex.PW1/2 150/ Harkrishan Hospital
21. Physiotherapy Bill from Guru 16.01.2019 Ex.PW1/2 150/ Harkrishan Hospital
22. Physiotherapy Bill from Guru 14.01.2019 Ex.PW1/2 150/ Harkrishan Hospital Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 14 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:33:23 +0530
23. Physiotherapy Bill from Guru 17.01.2019 Ex.PW1/2 150/ Harkrishan Hospital
24. Physiotherapy Bill from Guru 30.01.2019 Ex.PW1/2 150/ Harkrishan Hospital
25. Physiotherapy Bill from Guru 23.01.2019 Ex.PW1/2 150/ Harkrishan Hospital
26. Physiotherapy Bill from Guru 24.01.2019 Ex.PW1/2 150/ Harkrishan Hospital
27. Medicine Bill of Amrit 28.06.2019 Ex.PW1/2 99/ Pharmacy Total 2,60,377/ (31) The respondents have not disputed the aforesaid bills.
Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.2,60,377/ (Rupees Two Lacs, Sixty Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy Seven only) towards medical expenses. (32) Now coming to the aspect of Income of the petitioner/ injured, the petitioner Tara Wati Devi claims that she is a housewife and at the time of the accident she was doing the labour work and was earning Rs.12,000/ to Rs.15,000/. In so far as the respondents are concerned, they have disputed the same and claimed that the petitioner has not filed any document in respect of her earning, the nature of work and to show her qualification. I may note that the petitioner has not placed on record any document to show her qualification or her earning and hence, the minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident (Rs.13,896/) is taken as the income of the petitioner/ injured. Further, keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to the loss of income for three months which comes to Rs.41,688/ (Rs.13,896 x 3 = Rs.41,688/).
Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 15 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:33:30 +0530 (33) In so far as the Special Diet expenses, Conveyance charges
and Attendant charges are concerned, I may note that the petitioner has not placed on record any document showing any expenses incurred towards the same.
(34) Now coming to the aspect of Disability of the petitioner. In her affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A, the petitioner has claimed that on account of the accident, she had suffered permanent disability since she is unable to continue her work in future. The perusal of the record show that a Disability Report dated 25.01.2020 of the petitioner has been placed on record according to which the Medical Board of Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi has opined as under:
".... Present disability of Smt. Tara Wati Devi is 12.4% (Twelve Point Four Percent) in relation to Right Upper Limb. Review after 6 months...."
(35) Though the said Disability Report has not been proved in accordance with law, yet it is evident from the same that there is no permanent disability. The petitioner was advised to a Review after six months and there is nothing on record to show that any review had taken place. Even otherwise, when the petitioner Smt. Tara Wati Devi had appeared before this Court for recording her Financial Statement, this Court has not noticed any disability with the petitioner. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner had not suffered any Permanent Disability. (36) Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principals and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 16 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:33:40 +0530 in the present case as under:
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees)
Expenditure on treatment 2,60,377/
Expenditure on Conveyance 5,000/
Expenditure on Special Diet 5,000/
Cost of Nursing / Assistant 5,000/
Loss of Income for three months Rs.13,896 x 3 =
Rs.41,688/
Mental, Physical Shock, Pain & Sufferings 50,000/
Total 3,67,065/
(37) Since, 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), it is held that claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 05.07.2019 till realization of the amount (except for the period w.e.f. 23.10.2019 till 07.11.2019 since vide order dated 23.10.2019 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court had directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any interest w.e.f. 23.10.2019 till 07.11.2019).
Disbursement:
(38) The Financial Statement of the petitioner Smt. Tara Wati was recorded on 22.09.2020 according to which her monthly expenses are about Rs.25,000/.
Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 17 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:33:55 +0530 (39) This being the background and keeping in view the financial statement of the petitioner, I hereby direct that on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.67,065/ plus entire interest amount be released to the petitioner and the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/ shall be put in Thirty Monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account in equal amount of Rs.10,000/ each for a period of 01 month to 30 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 07, 2018. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, the petitioner Tara Wati Devi shall have the liberty to seek the release of Rs.67,065/ plus entire interest amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
(40) The above FDRs shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. decided on December 07, 2018:
(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 Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 18 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:34:04 +0530 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 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.
(41) In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 07, 2018, Summary of the Award in the prescribed FormatIV B is as under: Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 19 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:34:15 +0530 SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 27.06.2018
2. Name of the Injured: Smt. Tara Wati
3. Age of the Injured: 47 Years (as per Adhar Card)
4. Occupation of the Injured: Housewife
5. Income of the Injured: Rs.13,896/ per month (Minimum Wages for unskilled Labour)
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken by BLK Hospital, New Delhi the injured:
8. Period of Hospitalization: 27.06.2018 to 02.07.2018
9. Whether any permanent No disability? If yes, give details:
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment (as per 2,60,377/ medical bills)
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance (no 5,000/ document)
(iii) Expenditure on Special Diet (no 5,000/ document)
(iv) Cost of Nursing/ attendant (no 5,000/ document) Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 20 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:34:24 +0530
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of income for three months (no 13,896/ x 3 = salary slip and hence as per minimum 41,688/ wages)
(vii) Any other loss which may require any Nil special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and physical 50,000/ shock
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil 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 Nil nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation Nil of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in Nil relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income x % Nil earning capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION 3,67,065/ Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 21 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:34:32 +0530
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount upto the date of award 51,452/ (One Year, Six Months, Twenty One Days)
17. Total amount including interest 4,18,517/
18. Award amount released As mentioned in para No. 38
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para No. 38
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in amount of the claimant(s) para No. 38
21. Next date for compliance of the award 12.03.2021 Liability:
(42) In so far as the liability to pay the award amount is concerned, it is an admitted case that the offending scooty was not insured and the owner Suraj Bhan (respondent no.2) has been challaned under Section 5/180 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act. (43) Since the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 Chandan and it was registered in the name of the respondent no.2 Suraj Bhan, therefore, both the respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. (44) Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 22 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:34:40 +0530 RELIEF:
(45) Both the respondent no.1 Chandan and the respondent no.2 Suraj Bhan are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,67,065/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 05.07.2019 till realization of the amount (except for the period w.e.f.
23.10.2019 till 07.11.2019) with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioner failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(46) The respondents are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount to the petitioners/ claimants and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days from today. (47) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondents who are 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 the interest upto date of intimation of deposit to the claimant with a copy to her counsel Sh. Saurav Dang Advocate, Chamber No.462, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 110054, Mob. No. 9910668822.
(48) Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 12.03.2021 in the event of nonreceipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 23 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:34:51 +0530 (49) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the judgment titled Rajesh Tyagi
& Others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. decided by Hon'ble High Court on December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(50) File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:35:00 +0530 Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 11.02.2021 PO, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 24 of 27 FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 27.06.2018 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal 02.07.2018 (Clause 2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company Not applicable as there was no (Clause 2) Insurance 4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate Not Mentioned in the DAR (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer 05.07.2019 before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10) 6 Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance Not applicable as there was no Company. (Clause 11) Insurance 7 Date of service of DAR on the Claimant(s) (Clause 11) 05.07.2019 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects?
(Clause 16) Yes
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR
removed later on? No
10 Whether the police has verified the documents filed with DAR? (Clause 4) Yes 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, No whether any action/direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not applicable as there was no by the Insurance Company (Clause 20) Insurance 13 Name, address and contact number of the Not applicable as there was no Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Insurance (Clause 20) Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 25 of 27 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:35:09 +0530 14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Not applicable as there was no Insurance Company admitted his report within Insurance 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 22) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the Not applicable as there was no liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer Insurance of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23) 16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on Not applicable as there was no the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer Not applicable as there was no of the Insurance Company. (Clause 24) Insurance 18 Date of award 11.02.2021 19 Whether the award was passed with the consent No of the parties? (Clause 22) 20 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes savings bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18) 21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were 17.02.2020 directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near (since no order regarding the his place of residence and produce PAN card bank passbook was passed by and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank the Ld. Predecessor of this not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the Court) claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18) 22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account(s) near Not produced by the petitioner/ the place of their residence alongwith the claimant endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card?
(Clause 18) 23 Permanent residential address of the As per award claimant(s). (Clause 27) 24 Details of savings bank account(s) of the Not produced by the petitioner/ claimant(s) and the address of the bank with the claimant IFSC Code. (Clause 27) 25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Not produced by the petitioner/ account(s) is near their place of residence?
claimant
(Clause 27)
Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 26 of 27
Digitally signed by KAMINI
LAU
KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:35:17
+0530
26 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the Yes. The financial statement of time of passing of the Award to ascertain the petitioner has been his/their financial condition? (Clause 27) recorded.
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, Judge MACT01, Delhi, SBI, name and branch of the bank of the Claims Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Tribunal in which the award amount is to be Customer No. 80761891696, deposited/ transferred.
Code No. 00726
Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU
KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.11 16:35:24
+0530
(Dr. KAMINI LAU)
PO, MACT01 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 11.02.2021
Tara Wati Devi Vs. Chandan & Anr., MACT No. 456/2019, Award dated 11.02.2021 Page No. 27 of 27