Delhi District Court
Rakshit Singh vs Krishan Pal on 9 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MAYURI SINGH
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
CNR No.: DLET01-004908-2017
MACP No. 421/2019
Rakshit Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors.
In the matter of :
Rakshit Singh (Injured)
S/o Sh. Bhanwar Singh
R/o 50/3, Street No. 2, Shyam Nagar,
Nagar Govind Pura, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. ........ Petitioner
Versus
1. Brijesh Kumar Tiwari
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Tiwari
R/o 51, Rama Road, Moti Nagar, Delhi.
2. Krishan Pal (Owner)
S/o Sh. Roshan Lal
R/o H. No. B-179, IIIrd floor, Naraima Vihar,
Delhi.
3. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Respondents
Date of institution : 20.04.2017 Final arguments heard : 14.09.2023 and 09.11.2023.
Date of Award : 09.11.2023
AWAR D
1. The present claim petition is based on Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed under section 159/166 clause (4) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after Act) by the investigating officer of FIR No.99/2017 Police MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 1 of 20 Station Preet Vihar, Delhi. It is relevant here to mention that DAR was filed in the present case on the basis of closure report against the driver of the vehicle involved in accident. However, notice was issued by Ld. Predecessor to driver of the said vehicle i.e. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tiwari and thereafter, both driver and owner appeared before the Tribunal through counsel. R-1 also appeared in person. Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of both R-1 and R-2. Appearance was also put in by Insurer / Shri Ram GIC Ltd. of the vehicle bearing No. DL-1LS-2137. It is relevant here to mention that as it apparent from the record, cancellation report was not acceptable to the injured petitioner and hence the matter was proceeded on merits by the Tribunal. No protest petition was filed in the present case and the issues were framed on the basis of DAR itself by Ld. Predecessor.
2. The accident in the present case took place on 22.03.2017. As per the FIR, when police officials reached at the spot of accident at A-15, Service road, Vikas Marg, opposite piler No. 81, Preet Vihar, the vehicle baring No. DL-1LS-2137 (Tata 407) (hereinafter referred as "offending vehicle") was found on the road side in an accidental condition and on inquiry it was learnt that there was an accident due to collision between Tata 407 and Scooty. No eye witness could be found at the spot. In the closure report filed by the police, as attached to DAR, it is stated that on that day, the minor petitioner Rakshit took the Scooty bearing registration No.DL-3SDG-1707 of his neighbour namely Manoj Kumar from his home (which had been borrowed by her maternal uncle from Manoj Kumar as he had to go somewhere) without informing at home and he went to V3S Mall MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 2 of 20 where he met with his friends. It is further stated that after having some snacks, he was going to Preet Vihar side via Nirman vihar and he was driving the scooty at a very high speed as he had to rush at home and when he reached at Rajdhani Enclave, Service road, Vikas Marg, Opposite Preet Vihar, his scooty got disbalanced and hit against the stationery truck (Tata
407) bearing registration No. DL-1LS-2137, as a result of which, he received grievous injuries.
3. All the respondents have marked appearance. The right of R-1, R-2 & R-3 to file written statement was closed by Ld. Predecessor on 18.05.2017. Thereafter, matter was fixed for PE on the same day. One witness was examined on 06.06.2017 on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings of parties, issues were framed in the present case on 23.08.2018. Perusal of record shows that vide order dated 04.05.2017, written statement was directed to be filed by R-1 to R-3 within two weeks. While order-sheets of Ld. Predecessor do not reflect when were the written statement was filed on behalf of R-2 and R-3, the written statement on record on behalf of R-2 reflects the next date of hearing as 18.05.2017 and written statement on behalf of insurer reflects the next of hearing as 06.06.2017, which suggests that WS was filed on behalf of them much prior to framing of issues itself and somewhere in between the dates of hearing and recording of PE. No objection was taken by any of the respondents or petitioner at any stage, during framing of issues and recording of PE regarding the procedure adopted by Ld. Predecessor of the Tribunal. Perusal of record also reflects that initially when DAR was filed, MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 3 of 20 investigation in connected criminal case was pending and it is specifically mentioned in order dated 27.04.2017 that "IO is seeking time to file final report". It was also observed by Ld. Predecessor that in the absence of final report, there was no reason to reach to any conclusion, after it was stated by Addl. SHO concerned that there was no rashness on the part of the offending vehicle as his vehicle was in a stationery condition. Respondent No.2 and 3 / insurer have filed their separate written statement.
3.1 Respondents no.2 in his written statement has stated that the vehicle of the respondent No.2 was duly insured at the time of accident and vehicle was driven by respondent No.1, however, he was not arrayed as accused person and accident was caused due to negligence of the petitioner himself and police had filed cancellation report. It is further stated that respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation. 3.2 Respondent No.3 / insurer has filed written statement mentioning therein that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as the accident was caused due to the negligence of petitioner himself. It is further stated that driver Brijesh Kumar Tiwari has not been made accused in the present matter. It is further stated that the petitioner was minor at the time of accident and was not holding any driving licence to driver the vehicle. It is further stated that petitioner has categorically stated that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of vehicle.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 4 of 20 were framed on 23.08.2018 :-
(i) Whether Mr. Rakshit Singh suffered grievous injury in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 22.03.2017 at about 4:00 pm at Metro Pillar No. 81, Vikas Marg, in front of A-15, Swasthya Vihar, Preeti Vihar, Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS Preet Vihar, due to rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing Registration No.DL-1LS-2137 (TATA 407) by Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tiwari? (OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioner was driving the scooty bearing registration No. DL-3SDG-1707 without licence and carrying two pillion riders and thus, contributed to the accident, if so, the extent of the contributory negligence on his part? (OPR3)
(iii) Whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iii) Whether petitioner is entitled to interest on the Award Amount, if so, to what rate of interest and for which period?
(iv) Relief
5. In order to establish his claim, petitioner Rakshit Singh has examined four witnesses:-
5.1 PW1, Dr. Prabhat Aggarwal, Junior Consultant Orthopedics, MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 5 of 20 Deepak Memorial Hospital, Delhi was examined who proved the MLC, discharge summary, treatment record and original medical bills of petitioner Ex. PW1/A, Ex.PW1/1, Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/3. 5.2 PW2, Seema Singh, mother of the petitioner was examined, who proved the documents Ex.PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/3. 5.3 PW3, Kishore Thakur was examined as eye witness of the accident.
5.4. PW4, Rakshit Singh was examined and proved the following document:-
• original treatment papers Ex. PW4/1 • original medical bills Ex. PW4/2 • copy of aadhar card Ex. PW4/3 (OSR) • copy of senior school mark sheet Ex. PW4/4.
6. The respondent side did not lead any evidence.
7. I have heard Sh. Devendra Solanki, Ld. counsel for petitioner. No one appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 to respondent No. 3 to advance arguments. Written arguments were filed on behalf of R-2 on 16.12.2021 which is considered. I have perused the record.
8. The issues are decided as follows:-
ISSUE NO. 1 & 29. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and in fact is the preponderance of probabilities, which is applied in civil MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 6 of 20 cases. It is also the law that the tribunal is not bound by the technical rules of evidence. Further, in holding any inquiry under section 168, The Claims Tribunal may follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.
10. Now in this case, the petitioner Rakshit Singh is injured and witness of the accident. In order to establish his claim, he has examined himself as PW-4. He stated on oath in the affidavit about the accident and how it was caused. He has clearly deposed that on 22.03.2017 at about 4:00 pm, he was standing on the side of the road alogwith Scooty bearing registration No. DL-3SDG-1707, at Rajdhani Enclave, Service road, A-15, Vikas Marg, Opposite Preet Vihar, Delhi. He further stated that he was waiting for his friend at the relevant time, meanwhile a truck bearing registration No. DL-1LS-2137 (Tata 407), came which was being driven by its driver who was reversing his truck in a zig zag manner, at very fast speed without observing traffic rules and hit the deponent, who stood alongwith his Scooty at the relevant time. As a result of which, petitioner suffered multiple injuries on both of his legs in the accident. Petitioner has clearly testified on the point of negligence of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle i.e. Tata 407 bearing No. DL-1LS-2137. Here, at the outset, it is relevant to mention that an FIR No. 99/17 police station Preet Vihar was registered in the case and after investigation, Closure Report was filed by IO. It is mentioned in the DAR that Tata 407 bearing No. DL-1LS-2137 was found with driver and after inquiry from the vicinity, it was learnt that scooty driver had hit on Tata 407 vehicle from back side, while the same was in stationery condition and scooty driver was a minor. Tata 407 was MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 7 of 20 also seized. Scooty was taken away without police permission and thereafter, notice was given and then the same was deposited with police. Mechanical inspection of both vehicles was done. The contents of FIR reflect that injured Rakshit Singh was not in a condition to give statement at the time of registration of FIR and no eye witness was met by police. Cancellation report was filed later by IO before the Tribunal. In the cancellation report, it is mentioned by IO that statement of injured Rakshit Singh was recorded on 14.04.2017, wherein he stated that he had been to V3S Mall, where he met with his friends and after eating something in the Mall, he was going to Preet Vihar side via NirmanVihar and he was driving the scooty fast as he wished to reach home early as he had not informed his family prior to taking out Scooty, without seeking permission of his uncle. Scooty hit against a stationery Tata 407 vehicle after being disbalanced and scooty went under Tata 407 and he received injuries in both of his legs and further that there was no fault of driver of Tata 407. This cancellation report is heavily based on the purported statement given by the victim himself, which is an unsigned 161 Cr.P.C. statement of petitioner. It is a settled law that this statement can only be employed for the purpose of contradiction and not otherwise. Petitioner was never confronted with the said statement by any of the respondents. It is further seen that from the contents itself, it can be said that sustaining of injuries in the accident by injured Rakshit Singh is an admitted part of DAR. The involvement of the offending vehicle Tata 407 in question, is also not denied, albeit, IO has given a different version of the accident in the DAR. No evidence was led MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 8 of 20 by R-1 to R-3 in support of the version of accident in the cancellation report. As far as petitioner is concerned, the version as narrated by him before the Tribunal is in stark contrast to the version in the cancellation report. There is nothing brought on record to suggest why cancellation report should be given weightage over the testimony of eye witness in so far as the manner of accident is concerned, particularly when the cancellation report attached to DAR is adverse to the alleged unsigned statement given by the petitioner to the police during investigation and petitioner himself has not stated anything to suggest that any such statement was given by him to the police and he has not supported the cancellation report at all in so far as the manner of accident is concerned. Respondents failed to rely on the cancellation report and did not examine Investigating Officer or R-1 to disprove the claim of the petitioner regarding the manner of accident and negligence of R-1 in the accident. It is seen that during preparation of MLC Ex. PW1/A, alleged history of road traffic accident on 22.03.2017 was given by patient / attendant. The mechanical inspection report of Tata 407 in question shows the rear accidental impact present on the vehicle. Further, fresh damages were observed on the Honda Activa scooty of injured as well. It is seen that while PW2 stated that the injured was on scooty, when the offending truck had hit the Scooty while reversing the truck, according to PW4, he was standing alongwith scooty at the relevant time. This contradiction is not fatal and cannot be read against the petitioner to decline the claim for compensation as both of these witnesses are consistent in so far as the role MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 9 of 20 and negligence attributed to R-1 is concerned. Both of them have deposed that R-1 was reversing his truck in a rash and negligent manner and at a very fast speed. Further, as far as PW2 is concerned, PW2 has deposed in her cross-examination that she is not an eye witness of the accident whereas PW4 / injured himself is an eye witness of the accident. PW4 has denied in his cross-examination that he was driving his scooty. Further, it is seen that PW3 has also deposed that at the time of accident, his son was standing on the edge of road with scooty. It is relevant here to mention that during her cross-examination on the same date, PW2 not only stated that she was not an eye witness to the accident but also stated that "I am not aware if my son was driving the scooty at the time of accident". PW2 was not asked by Ld. Counsel for R-3 as to what was the source of her knowledge regarding the manner of accident. PW2 being a hearsay witness, not much reliance can be placed on her testimony. Coming to PW3, he is stated to be eye witness of the accident. It has come in the testimony of PW2 and PW3 that no protest petition was filed to the cancellation report filed in the criminal case till the time or their depositions before the Tribunal. Further, PW3 had never visited police station for recording for his statement as an eye witness. Further, it also came to fore that PW3 did not inquire about the fate of criminal case. A suggestion was given to him that he was not an eye witness to the accident which was denied by him. It is seen that in the MLC, his name is mentioned under the name of relative and MLC was prepared after 20 minutes of the accident. While it is strange that PW3 did not approach MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 10 of 20 police for recording of his statement, it is relevant here to mention that no evidence was led by any of the respondents to show that he was a witness to the spot of accident in the aftermath of it and not an eye witness. It is seen that during preparation of MLC Ex. PW1/A, alleged history of road traffic accident on 22.03.2017 was given by patient / attendant. The standard of proof applicable in the cases of accidental claim before MACT is of preponderance of probabilities and once the testimony of eye witnesss / injured is on record and no dent could be made in his testimony by any of the respondents by leading any evidence to the contrary, in my considered view, a view favourable to the injured has to be taken by the Tribunal.
11. In New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Pazhaniammal (2011) (2) KLT 648, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held that as a general rule, it can be accepted that production of charge-sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of claim under section 166 MV Act. If any party does not accept such charge-sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce evidence. If the Tribunal feels that charge-sheet is collusive, it can record that charge-sheet cannot be accepted and call upon the parties at any stage to adduce oral evidence of accident and alleged negligence. In such cases, issue of negligence must be decided on other evidence ignoring the charge-sheet.
12. In the case at hand, closure report has been filed and injured has assailed the same by leading evidence to the contrary. No eye witness has been examined by any of the respondents to the proceedings by examining any eye witness or other evidence which could throw away the testimony MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 11 of 20 of PW4 / injured. It is seen that one Sanjeev Kumar has been cited as an eye witness in the closure report attached to the DAR but he was never examined by the respondents. It is relevant here to mention that though the eye witnesses have deposed that the injured was standing beside the Scooty, neither any explanation has come from them on the point of the damages on the Scooty and whether the same was also hit at the time of accident, nor any questions were put to them in their cross-examination to discredit their testimonies or to prove that the scooty was in a moving condition.
13. Respondent no.1 and 2 (the owner and driver of the offending vehicle) did not lead any evidence to prove any contrary to the claim of the petitioner. In National Insur Company Ltd Vs. Chamundeshwari & ors. 2021 ACJ 2558. It was held that "if any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents of the First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over to the contents of First Information Report". In the case of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Kamlesh and Others2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that an adverse inference can be drawn when the driver of the offending vehicle does not enter into the witness box.
14. In view of above, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities of evidence and discussion above-said, it is proved that the petitioner Rakshit Singh received grievous injuries due to rash and negligent act of respondent no.1 Brijesh Kumar Tiwari, the driver of the offending vehicle.
MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 12 of 20Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
15. As far as issue no 2 is concerned, no evidence is led by respondents to show that the petitioner was driving the Scooty at the time of accident or that he was carrying two pillion riders as well. PW4 has categorically denied that he was driving the Scooty at the time of accident and clearly deposed that he was standing on roadside with Scooty at that time. Name of pillion riders is not disclosed either by any of the respondents by leading evidence. Once it is not established on record by leading evidence that Rakshit was driving the Scooty at the relevant point of time, no question arises to consider that he was a minor and not competent to hold a valid driving licence while driving the same. Hence, this issue is decided against R-3.
ISSUE No.3 :
16. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. The compensation should not be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance.
17. The case of Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Another (2011) 1 SCC 343, is one of the most prominent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which deals with compensation in injuries cases. It was held in this case that in routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under the heads-(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 13 of 20 medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment and (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation is also to be done under the head of loss of future earnings which would depend the effect and impact of such permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured. The tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of percentage of the income. It has to be quantified in terms of money to arrive at the future loss of earnings by applying standard multiplier method. All injuries or permanent disabilities arising from injuries do not resulting loss of earning capacity. If there is no loss of employment or earning capacity, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities in consequent to his injuries.
18. Therefore on the basis of the injuries to the petitioner, the compensation is awarded to him under the aforesaid heads as follows :-
MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 14 of 20MEDICAL EXPENSES:
19. Petitioner has proved on record his medical bills Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW2/2 (colly) to the tune of Rs.2,84,276/- (medical shop bill at page No.2 of Ex.PW2/2 is not mentioned in the calculation of bills and further in the calculation of bills, there is a reference to CA17/342 dated 2.04.2017 for a sum of Rs. 24/- but no such bill is filed and proved on judicial record. Cash bill at page No. 43 to 46 of Ex. PW2/2 is not in continuity and is attached after the calculation of medical bills and is for a sum of Rs.1890/-). Petitioner was admitted for the second time in Yashoda Superspeciality hospital on 22.04.2019 and discharged on 23.04.2019 as per document Ex. PW4/1. The further treatment bill are Ex. PW4/2 for a sum of Rs. 53,038/-. All the bills under reference are in original and in order. Under this head, only original medical bills are reimbursed. Hence, an amount of Rs.3,37,314/- (2,84,276 + 53,038) is being awarded under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING:
20. According to his affidavit, after the accident, petitioner was treated in various hospitals. PW2 deposed that her son injured Rakshit remained in Deepak Memorial Hospital from 22.03.2017 to 28.03.2017 and was put under two surgical operations of both of his legs and after PAC clearance bilateral femur planting was done under general anesthesia on 23.03.2017. After discharge from hospital, physiotherapy was conducted at home for several days. She deposed in her testimony that Rakshit was on bed till that time. Medical documents of the petitioner MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 15 of 20 shows that he was admitted in hospital twice. PW4 deposed that he remained admitted in Deepak Memorial hospital from 22.03.2017 to 28.03.2017. Though PWs have not specifically deposed regarding second admission of Rakshit in Yashoda Superspeciality Hospital, the medical documents are on record, showing that he was admitted as F/U/C of fracture bilateral femur, for removal of implant on 22.04.2019 and discharged on 23.04.2019. PW1, Dr. Prabhat Aggarwal deposed that patient was put under two surgical operation on both thighs in same sitting whereby fractures were fixed with plates and screws. He was discharged on 28.03.2017 and advised bed rest till the month of May. The plates and screw were advised to be removed after two years and patient was advised to physiotherapy. Considering that medical documents reflecting that fracture was sustained by the petitioner and he remained in hospital for 8 days and further had to take physiotherapy treatment, I consider it proper to grant a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner under this head. CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
21. The petitioner has not proved any actual expenses in relation to these heads and has not placed any material on record to substantiate the said expenses. PW1 has deposed that patient was prescribed High protein diet for speedy recovery. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit to grant Rs.8,000/- to petitioner for conveyance and Rs. 4,000/- as special diet charges.
22. Though no evidence has been led to show that petitioner had hired any attendant during his treatment, it cannot be ignored that family MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 16 of 20 members of petitioner must have had to render their services for providing assistance to the petitioner for his routine activities and that would definitely suffer their work/job. For claiming compensation, necessity of employing a professional attendant/ care taker is not required and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the family members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver. (DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). Therefore, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as attendant charges.
23. Thus, petitioner is granted a total compensation of Rs.22,000/- (8,000+4,000+10,000) under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT :
24. Though petitioner has claimed compensation under this head, it is an admitted case that he was 14 years old student studying in 9 th class and not working at the time of accident. Hence, no question arises for grant of compensation on account of loss of income as he could not have had any loss of income. Hence, no amount is being granted as compensation under this head.
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY
25. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has not submitted anything to suggest that petitioner has suffered from loss of income or any change on account of permanent disability as per the Disability Certificate filed by the GTB hospital. The disability is shown to be 5% in both lower limbs and no doctor has been examined to suggest that this disability is hindrance MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 17 of 20 to any future occupation of the petitioner. No doctor was examined by petitioner to show that 5% disability to the left lower limb has rendered the petitioner unable to carry on his day to day life and activities as before. Hence, the functional disability is taken as zero percent in the overall facts and circumstances. No compensation is being awarded under this head. LOSS OF AMENITIES
26. Though no evidence has been led by the petitioner under this head, considering his young age, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
27. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1 Medical Expenses 3,37,314/-
2 Pain & Sufferings Rs.20,000/-
Conveyance, Special diet & Rs.22,000/-
3
Attendant Charges
4 Loss of Amenities Rs.10,000/-
TOTAL Rs.3,89,314/-
rounded off to
Rs.3,89,000/-
ISSUE NO. 4:
Whether petitioner is entitled to interest on the Awarded Amount, if so, to what rate of interest and for which period?
MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 18 of 2028. Petitioner has pursued his case since the year 2017. Therefore, he is entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum on the aforesaid award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization, excluding the interest for the delayed period, as mentioned in the order dated 09.10.2021. It was mentioned in the said order that "Today also none has appeared on behalf of petitioner and R1 to address final arguments. Though case is old, still one more opportunity is granted to petitioner to address final arguments on next date. However, it is made clear that petitioner shall not be entitled to interest till delayed period". The said order was never recalled or modified and attained finality. It is observed that despite the order dated 09.10.2021, final arguments were not addressed by the petitioner and instead application was moved for examining himself in evidence and final arguments by way of written submission was filed only on 14.09.2023 and it is further seen that matter was re-posted for RE only because petitioner chose to lead further evidence after PE was already closed on 07.02.2019, hence interest from 09.10.2021 till 14.09.2023 is not payable by the insurance company on the award. Hence, the period from 09.10.2021 till 14.09.2023 is to be excluded in calculation of the interest.
LIABILITY:
29. Since the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident and the respondent No.3 i.e. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited is the Insurer. Thus, the respondents No.3 is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner.
MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 19 of 20RELIEF:
30. In view of the findings on above points, I, as presiding officer of this Tribunal, award a total compensation of Rs. 3,89,000/- (rupees three lakhs eighty nine thousands only) is passed in favour of petitioner and against respondent No. 3 / insurer along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the aforesaid award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization, excluding the period of delay as above explained, in favour of petitioner against the respondent no.3 / insurer. This award is required to be deposited with this Tribunal within 30 days.
Announced in the open Mayuri Singh Court on 09.11.2023 Presiding Officer-MACT (East) (Total 20 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi MACP No. 421/19 Rakshi Singh Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. Page 20 of 20