Delhi District Court
Master Manoj @ Monu vs . Thane Ram & Ors. Page 1 Of 32 on 30 July, 2022
Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 1 of 32
IN THE COURT OF MS. JASJEET KAUR, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
New No. 502712016
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010000512007
1. Master Manoj @ Monu S/o Sh. Vipin Dass,
R/o 23/143, Opp. Ayurvedic Hospital,
Haiderpur, Delhi.
........ Petitioner/claimant
Vs.
1. Sh. Thane Ram S/o Sh. Daya Chand,
R/o Village Anang Pur, Faridabad,
Haryana.
....... Driver/R1
2. Sh. Baleshwar S/o Sh. Hari Chand,
R/o Village & Post Anang Pur,
District Faridabad, Haryana.
....... Owner/R2
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Oriental House A25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi110002.
..... Insurance co./R3
.......... Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.07.2007
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 30.07.2022
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.07.2022
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 1 of32
Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 2 of 32
AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI
Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 01.04.2007
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Petition was filed
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 13.09.2007
investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. N/A
before the Metropolitan Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Petition was filed
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance Company 13.09.2007
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). Petition was filed
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Petition was filed
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed Petition was filed
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Petition was filed
filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the Petition was filed
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by 13.09.2007
the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. M. Awasthi, Ld.
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Counsel for the
insurance co.
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the Not fairly computed
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the compensation
the insurance company fairly computed the
Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 2 of32
Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 3 of 32
compensation in accordance with law.
16. 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?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of N/A
the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 30.07.2022
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 15.04.2019
to open saving bank account (s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar Card
and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque
book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 18.09.2019
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) As mentioned above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Manoj, savings bank
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC a/c No.37734417267
Code with SBI, Jahangirpuri
Branch, Delhi.
IFSC :
SBIN0004840
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the Claims 110002427,
Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 3 of32
Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 4 of 32
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be SBIN0010323, SBI,
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order dated Rohini Courts, Delhi
18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO
842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim proceedings have emanated from a claim petition preferred under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act') on 05.07.2007 for seeking compensation in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) along with interest @ 18% p.a. in respect of injuries sustained by one Master Manoj @ Monu (hereinafter referred to as 'the injured/ the petitioner/ the claimant') in a motor vehicular accident. A perusal of court record reveals that another victim of the same accident, namely, Satya Narayan Rao had also sustained injuries in the case accident in respect of which a separate claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs with interest @ 18% per annum had also been instituted.
2. A perusal of court record reveals that an FIR bearing No.240/2007 was also registered at PS Jahangir Puri in respect of the alleged commission of offences of causing hurt to Master Manoj @ Monu and Satya Narayan Sharma by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road punishable U/s 279/337 of Indian Penal Code 1860, wherein subsequent charge sheet for alleged commission of offences of causing simple hurt to child Manoj @ Monu S/o Sh. Vipin and grievous hurt to Sh. Satya Narayan Sharma S/o Sh. Kade Singh was filed against one Thane Ram.
3. The brief facts of the case as discernible from the claim petition and documents of the petitioner are that on 01.04.2007, one Satya Narayan Sharma was driving a scooter bearing registration No. DL8SL9528 along with Smt. Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 4 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 5 of 32 Geeta W/o Sh. Vipin, R/o Jhuggi No. N23/43, J.J. Camp in front of Ayurvedic Hospital, Village Haiderpur, who was travelling on the above said scooter as a pillion rider/passenger along with her two children, including victim Manoj @ Monu from her residence in village Haiderpur to Nirankari Ground via Outer Ring Road and at about 11:30 am, upon reaching near Mukund Pur, Red Light, on Outer Ring Road, Delhi, one Eicher Tempo bearing registration No.HR38N7134 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) being driven by its driver, namely, Thane Ram (hereinafter referred to as the respondent no.1/R1), in a very fast speed and negligent manner had hit the abovesaid scooter of Satya Narayan Rao from right side. As a consequence of collision with the offending vehicle, the scooter of the victim had fell down alongwith scooter rider and all pillion riders(passengers), thereby resulting injuries on the persons of scooter rider Satya Narayan Rao and child Master Manoj @ Monu. Petitioner Master Manoj @ Monu was medically examined at Babu Jagjeevan Ram Hospital (hereinafter referred to as BJRM Hospital) vide MLC No.28919 dated 01.04.2007 wherein it had been mentioned that the patient was initially drowsy and was not responding to verbal stimuli and had sustained various injuries including clear lacerated wound of size 2cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm as well as blood stain over urethral cortex which had been managed by foley catherization to clear urine in the bladder. Although it had been mentioned in the MLC of the petitioner that he had sustained simple injuries in the case accident. However, it was subsequently revealed during treatment that the petitioner had sustained undisplaced fracture of left inferior pubic ranus and had remained admitted for treatment of the same at LNJP Hospital with effect from 02.04.2007 upto 08.04.2007.
4. R1/Sh. Thane Ram S/o Sh. Daya Chand, who was the driver of the offending vehicle and Sh. Baleshwar S/o Sh. Hari Chand, who was the owner of the offending vehicle had filed their separate written statements wherein they had Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 5 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 6 of 32 taken common defences, including the defence to the effect that the case accident had occurred due to negligence of scooter driver Satya Narayan Rao who was riding his scooter without obeying the rules and regulations of the road in a hurried manner and had therefore collided with some other vehicle. They had further claimed in their defence that the petitioner had falsely implicated R1 in the present matter and even otherwise the claim of the petitioner was highly excessive and was not maintainable. It had been further claimed in the written statements of R1 and R2 that the offending vehicle was duly insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited vide policy No. 364719 having its validity period commencing from 26.05.2006 and expiring on 25.05.2007 and therefore as such they had no liability to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
4.1 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.3/R3) had filed its written statement wherein it had been stated that the claim of the petitioner seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as well as the interim award, if any, alongwith interest @ 18% was baseless, misconceived and without any cause of action and R3 was not liable to pay any such compensation to the petitioner. It had been avered in the written statement of R3 that the accident in question had occurred on account of negligence on the part of Satya Narayan Rao, who was driving the scooter bearing registration No. DL8SL9528 with three pillion riders/passengers in contravention of the seating capacity of a two wheeler scooter. It had been further mentioned in the written statement of R3 that, if in case it was found during investigation or trial of the present matter that R1/driver of the offending vehicle, that is, Eicher Canter bearing registration No.HR38N 7134 was driving the said vehicle without holding the proper, effective and valid driving licence to drive the class of the vehicle involved in the alleged accident, then no liability may be fastened upon R3 to pay any compensation to the victim Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 6 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 7 of 32 and liberty may be granted to R3 to avail all the defences available to it U/s 149(2) of Motor Vehicle Act. R3 had, however, admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it in the name of Sh. Baleshwar vide policy No.272400/31/2007/751 having its validity period commencing from 26.05.2006 and expiring on 25.05.2007.
5. From the pleadings of the parties/petition, the following issues were framed by the learned Predecessor of this court vide order dated 23.07.2008: (1) Whether on 01.04.2007 at about 11:30 am on outer ring road tempo no. HR38N7134 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit scooter No. DL8SL9528 and caused injuries to petitioner? OPP (2) Whether the scooter was being driven negligently? OPR1, 2 & 3. (3) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for if so from which of the respondent? OPP (4) Relief.
6. Smt. Geeta, who is the mother of the petitioner/claimant had examined herself as PW1. No other witness had been examined by the petitioner in support of his version of the case.
6.1 A perusal of the court record reveals that R1 and R2 had not examined any witness in support of their respective versions of the case. R1 had failed to appear on several dates of hearing and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.09.2017. R2 had also failed to appear on several dates of hearing and was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.10.2017. 6.2 A perusal of the court record further reveals that the insurance co./R3 had examined only one witness, namely Ms. Neelam Rani, Assistant, Oriental Insurance Company Limited as R3W1 in the present matter. No other witness had been examined by the insurance co. in support of its version of the case.
Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 7 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 8 of 32
7. I have heard the final arguments addressed by Sh. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. M. Awasthi, learned counsel for the insurance co./R3. None had appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 for addressing final arguments. Even otherwise R1 and R2 had already been proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 15.09.2017 and 27.10.2017 respectively. My issue wise findings based on my appreciation of the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective versions of the case are reproduced herein below:
8. Issue wise findings: ISSUE No. 1 (1) Whether on 01.04.2007 at about 11:30 am on outer ring road tempo no. HR38N7134 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit scooter No. DL8SL9528 and caused injuries to petitioner? OPP The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioner.
8.1 Smt. Geeta, mother of the victim/petitioner had examined herself as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein she had reiterated the facts narrated in the petition by stating that on 01.04.2007, she alongwith her two minor children including petitioner Manoj @ Monu were travelling as a pillion riders/passengers on the scooter bearing registration No. DL8SL9528 which was being driven by Sh. Satya Narayan Rao from her residence in village Haiderpur to Nirankari Ground via Outer Ring Road and at about 11:30 am, upon reaching near Mukund Pur, Red Light, on Outer Ring Road, Delhi, one Eicher Tempo bearing registration No.HR38N7134 being driven by R1 in a very fast speed and negligent manner had hit their scooter from right side, as a consequence of which, she along with her children as well as the scooter rider Satya Narain Rao had fell down and thereby all of them had sustained injuries on their person for Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 8 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 9 of 32 treatment of which they were shifted to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. She deposed that she had spent more than Rs. 50,000/ on medicine, medical treatment of her son Manoj @ Monu as well as on his conveyance, special diet and miscellaneous expenses under other special and general admitted heads. She stated that her son had sustained fracture injuries in the case accident and had remained admitted at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital with effect from 02.04.2007 to 08.04.2007. She clarified that the petitioner was a school going child who had lost his entire academic year due to injuries sustained in the case accident.
8.2 None had appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 in the Court to cross examine PW1 and the crossexamination of PW1 was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to R1 and R2 to cross examine the witness. 8.3 In his crossexamination by learned counsel for the insurance company/R3, PW1 admitted that she had got the FIR in question registered. She deposed that contents of FIR were true and correct. She stated that the age of her injured son at the time of accident was ten years. She deposed that she had not filed any documents in respect of age of injured son except discharge slip and medical prescription card. She stated that her son had passed the fourth class examination at the time of accident and on the date of accident, he had been promoted to class fifth. She further stated that her son was standing in between the driver of the scooter and the handle of the scooter whereas her daughter was sitting in between herself and driver of the scooter Sh. Satya Narain. She denied the suggestion that the case accident had occurred due to negligence of driver of the scooter on which her injured son was standing as the driver of the scooter could not control his scooter due to standing of her injured son in front of the scooter as stated above. She denied the suggestion that scooter on which she alongwith her son was travelling had hit the offending Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 9 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 10 of 32 vehicle from back. She further denied the suggestion that the accident in question had not occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. She stated that she had not filed any medical bills in respect of treatment of her injured son Master Manoj. She, however, denied that she had not spent Rs. 50,000/ on medicines, medical treatment, conveyance, special diet etc. of the petitioner.
8.4 R1/Thane Ram/driver of the offending vehicle and R2/Sh. Baleshwar, owner of the offending vehicle had not examined any witness in support of their version of the case.
8.5 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited/R3 had examined only one witness in support of its case, namely, Ms. Neelam Rani, Assistant, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, F14, Connaught Circus, New Delhi as R3W1. She deposed that the insurance co. had issued the policy No.272400/31/207/751 for vehicle No.HR38N7134 for the period commencing from 26.05.2006 and expiring on the mid night of 25.05.2007 to Sh. Baleshwar, Ex.R3W1/1 and the insurance co. had verified the registration certificate of the vehicle No. HR38N7134 through Sh. Manohar Lal vide report Ex.R3W1/2. She proved on record the report of Transport Authority, Faridabad regarding name of the owner of the offending vehicle and date of its salecumtransfer to the second owner as Ex.R3W1/3. She further deposed that insurance co. had also verified the driving licence of driver Sh. Thane Ram from the transport authority, Faridabad through auto risk and proved on record the report of transport authority, Faridabad regarding validity of licence of R1 Thane Ram as Ex.R3W1/4. She further stated that the insurance co. had also obtained the fard of driving licence in respect of seizure of driving licence of R1 Thane Ram by the IO of FIR No.240/07 and proved the same on record as Ex.R3W1/5. She deposed that the insurance co. had also given notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC to the alleged driver/R1 and owner/R2 Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 10 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 11 of 32 of vehicle bearing number HR38N7134 and proved on record the office copy of said notice dated 27.03.2014 as Ex.R3W1/7. She stated that the above mentioned notice was dispatched to the addresses of R1 and R2 through registered post vide postal receipts Ex.R3W1/7 and Ex.R3W1/8. She proved on record the copies of track reports/result of said registered post as mark A and B respectively. She deposed that the insurance co. had also tried to obtain the permit of the said vehicle through investigator Sh. Charan Singh and proved his report on record as Ex.R3W1/9. She further deposed that R1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident.
8.6 In her crossexamination by Sh. P.C. Katiyar, learned proxy counsel for Sh. N.D. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, R3W1 stated that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to driver the vehicle in question at the time of accident.
8.7 None had appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 in the Court to cross examine PW2 and the crossexamination of PW2 was treated as nil despite opportunity being given to R1 and R2 to cross examine the witness.
8.8 No material contradiction or discrepancy has appeared in the cross examination of PW1 to discredit her above said testimony which prima facie establishes that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 thereby causing grievous injuries on the person of the petitioner. PW1 Geeta Devi is the mother of injured Master Manoj @ Monu and she had no reason to depose falsely in the present matter against R1. Even otherwise, R1 and R2 have failed to cross examine PW1 and therefore her testimony has remained unrebutted as well as unchallenged on behalf of R1 and R2. Hence, R1 and R2 shall be deemed to have admitted the deposition of the mother of the petitioner regarding occurrence of the case accident due to rash Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 11 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 12 of 32 and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. Besides, the testimony of PW1 is otherwise reliable and trustworthy as she has withstood her cross examination conducted by learned counsel for the insurance company. 8.9 Moreover, a copy of the criminal case record has been filed by the petitioner in the present matter. A perusal of the same reveals that the charge sheet for the commission of offences punishable u/s 279/337 IPC was also filed against R1/driver of the offending vehicle in respect of the case accident. The criminal case record can also be relied upon to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle and the negligence on the part of R1. Even otherwise, the factum of accident has not been disputed by R1.
8.10 The issue no.1 is only to be proved by claimant beyond preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt. 8.11 Accordingly, in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of materials placed on record and in view of above discussion, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1, and hence, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents by arriving at a finding to the effect that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 and thereby the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents accordingly.
9. Issue No. (2) Whether the scooter was being driven negligently? OPR1, 2 & 3 The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities was upon the respondents.
9.1 The respondents no.1 and 2 had not lead any evidence in support of their
Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 12 of32
Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 13 of
32
claim that scooter driver Satya Narayan Rao was driving his scooter in a rash and negligent as well as hurried manner with three pillion riders. 9.2 Besides, the insurance co. has also not led any evidence to establish that the scooter rider, namely, Satya Narayan Rao was driving his scooter in a rash and negligent manner with three pillion rider. Nevertheless, it is the admitted case of the parties that there were in fact three pillion riders travelling on the scooter being driven by Sh. Satya Narayan Rao, that is, Smt. Geeta and her two minor children, including victim Manoj @ Monu.
9.3 Learned counsel for insurance co/R3 has argued that the scooter driver had also contributed to the accident as he had taken the risk of allowing three persons, including one lady and two minor children to travel on the scooter being driven by him as pillion riders/passengers. 9.4 A similar situation had come up for consideration before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Darwan Singh Aswal vs The United India Insurance Company Ltd., MAC.APP.97/2012 date of decision 01.11.2012, wherein three persons were riding on a motorcycle as pillion riders. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that although a motorcycle is meant for two persons including motorcycle rider and a pillion rider and tripple riding is an offence U/s 128/177 of M.V. Act, however, there is no presumption in law that there would always be negligence on the part of two wheeler driver if three persons are riding on the two wheeler in question and negligence of the two wheeler rider had to be established as a fact by leading reliable and cogent evidence. The relevant extract of observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para no.6 of the judgment is reproduced herein below: Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 13 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 14 of 32 It was not disputed that the truck came from behind and dashed against the two wheeler. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, rightly concluded that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver, but fell into error while holding that the two wheeler driver contributed to the accident because of triple riding. Triple riding on a two wheeler is in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act). Appropriate punishment is provided for triple riding on a two wheeler under Section 128 read with Section 177 of the Act. However, there is no presumption that there would always be negligence on the part of two wheeler driver if three persons are riding on a two wheeler. The negligence has to be established as a fact. In the instant case, as stated earlier, the manner of the accident has not been disputed in crossexamination of the two eye witnesses produced by the Appellants. The Claims Tribunal without any material on record simply on the ground that three persons were riding on the two wheeler concluded that there was contributory negligence. The conclusion of contributory negligence, therefore, cannot be sustained.
9.5 The above cited judgment of Darwan Singh Aswal (Supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As held in the said case, the appropriate punishment is provided for triple riding on a two wheeler under section 128 r/w section 177 of M.V. Act, however, there is no presumption in law that there would always be negligence on the part of a two wheeler driver if three persons were riding on it, hence it can be safely concluded that negligence of a two wheeler rider carrying three passengers has to be established as a matter of fact in accordance with legal procedures by leading admissible and reliable evidence. Further, the manner of occurrence of the case accident has not been Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 14 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 15 of 32 disputed in the cross examination of PW1 and therefore it has been established that the offending vehicle had hit the scooter of the injured from behind due to which the scooter rider as well as three pillion riders had fell down on the road. In the said circumstances and on the basis of evidence available on record, the arguments of learned counsel for R3/insurance co. regarding contributory negligence on the part of the scooter driver is not sustainable and is devoid of any merit.
9.6 In view of my forgoing discussion issue no.2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents by arriving at a finding that there was no negligence on the part of the scooter rider as no inculpatory evidence regarding negligence of the scooter rider has been brought on record by any of the three respondents and therefore as such this tribunal is of the opinion that the accident in question had occurred due to sole negligence of R1 who had hit the scooter of the petitioner from behind while driving his vehicle rashly and negligently.
10. Issue No.3 Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for if so from which of the respondent? OPP 10.1 In view of my findings in issue no.1 and 2 above regarding negligence of R1 resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation in respect of medical expenses incurred by his parents on his treatment as well as pain and suffering endured by him on account of injuries sustained in the case accident. I shall now examine the entire evidence led by parties including the documents of the petitioner for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled.
10.2 Smt. Geeta, mother of minor petitioner Manoj @ Monu had examined herself as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein she had reiterated the Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 15 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 16 of 32 facts narrated in the petition by stating that on 01.04.2007, she was sitting as pillion rider along with victim Master Manoj @ Monu and his daughter on the scooter bearing registration No. DL8SL9528, which was being driven by Satya Narayan Rao, from her residence in village Haiderpur to Nirankari Ground via Outer Ring Road and at about 11:30 am, upon reaching near Mukund Pur, Red Light, on Outer Ring Road, Delhi, the offending vehicle being driven by R1 in a very fast speed and negligent manner had hit their scooter from right side due to which all of them had fell down on the road and the victim had sustained grievous injuries including fracture of left inferior pubic ranus. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation:
11. Medical Expenses.
11.1 PW1 Smt. Geeta Devi, mother of the victim had deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit that she had incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ on medicine, medical treatment of the petitioner as well as on his conveyance, special diet and miscellaneous expenses under other special and general admitted heads. However, a perusal of court record reveals that not even a single medical bill containing details of expenses incurred on the treatment of the petitioner has been filed by PW1 Smt. Geeta Devi. In fact, a perusal of the court record further reveals that entire treatment of the petitioner in respect of grievous injuries sustained in the case accident had taken place at government hospitals including BJRM and LNJP Hospitals and therefore as such no money must have been paid by the petitioner or his mother towards his treatment from their pocket. Hence, this Tribunal is not inclined to award any compensation to the petitioner under the head of medical expenses.
12. Special Diet and conveyance 12.1 Mother of petitioner, namely, Geeta Devi deposed as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein she had sought compensation to the tune of Rs.
Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 16 of32
Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 17 of
32
50,000/ towards expenses on medicines, medical treatment of the petitioner as well as his conveyance and special diet etc. She had, however, not specified the exact expenses incurred by her on procuring special diet and nutritional supplements for the petitioner as well as for taking the petitioner to the hospital from their residence and viceversa during the treatment period. 12.2 The mother of the petitioner had also not endeavoured to prove the expenses incurred by her on special diet and conveyance of the petitioner by leading any documentary evidence in the form of prescription of special diet issued in the name of the petitioner by any doctor or dietitian as well as by placing on record the transport bills and bills for purchases made by her towards special diet such as nutritional supplements, liquid diets, protein diets, etc. required by the petitioner during recuperation period. In such circumstances, the requirement of special diet etc. by the petitioner and the expenses incurred by his mother on the same have to be determined in accordance with the nature of injuries sustained by him.
12.3 In this context, a perusal of the petitioner's MLC bearing No.28919 dated 01.04.2007 reveals that the petitioner was initially drowsy and was not responding to verbal stimuli and had sustained various injuries including clear lacerated wound of size 2cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm as well as blood stain over urethral cortex which had been managed by foley catherization to clear urine in the bladder. Although it had been mentioned in the MLC of the petitioner that he had sustained simple injuries in the case accident. However, it was subsequently revealed during treatment of the petitioner that the petitioner had sustained undisplaced fracture of left inferior pubic ranus and had remained admitted for treatment of the same at LNJP Hospital with effect from 02.04.2007 upto 08.04.2007.
12.4 Besides, the petitioner had annexed his follow up treatment record
Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 17 of32
Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 18 of
32
including a report of the Xray department dated 04.06.2007 which prima facie establishes that the petitioner must have remained under follow up treatment for fracture injuries sustained in the case accident upto the month of June, 2007. Accordingly, the period of treatmentcumrecuperation in the case of the petitioner is ascertained to be about four months.
12.5 Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the period of his hospitalization, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have been required to take some special diets, including nutrition supplements, high protein diet etc. for speedy recovery of the fracture of left pubic ranus sustained by the petitioner in the case accident as well as the period of his treatment, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs. 40,000/ as compensation to the petitioner under this head including Rs. 20,000/ each towards special diet and conveyance respectively.
13. Attendant Charges 13.1 Mother of petitioner, namely, Geeta Devi deposed as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein she had sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ towards expenses on medicines, medical treatment of the petitioner as well as his conveyance and special diet etc. She had, however, nowhere claimed in her evidence by way of affidavit that she had hired any medical attendant for care and look after the petitioner during his treatment period. Nevertheless, the petitioner had sustained fracture of left inferior pubic ranus. In view of the above detailed fracture injury sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner must have required services of a medical attendant for his care and lookafter including providing assistance required by him in moving around, bathing, answering the call of nature etc. Besides, the treatment cum recuperation period of the petitioner has already been determined to be about four months. Accordingly, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 18 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 19 of 32 petitioner as well as by considering the period of his treatment to be about four months, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to award Rs.20,000/ as compensation to the petitioner under this head of attendant charges.
14. Pain and Suffering 14.1 As discussed above, a perusal of the petitioner's MLC bearing No.28919 dated 01.04.2007 reveals that the petitioner was initially drowsy and was not responding to verbal stimuli and had sustained various injuries including clear lacerated wound of size 2cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm as well as blood stain over urethral cortex which had been managed by foley catherization to clear urine in the bladder. Although it had been mentioned in the MLC of the petitioner that he had sustained simple injuries in the case accident. However, it was subsequently revealed during treatment that the petitioner had sustained undisplaced fracture of left inferior pubic ranus and had remained admitted for treatment of the same at LNJP Hospital with effect from 02.04.2007 upto 08.04.2007. 14.2 In view of the grievous nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have endured physical pain and mental agony during his recuperation period. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/ is granted as compensation to the petitioner under the said head of pain and suffering.
15. Loss of Studies 15.1 Although the name of the school of minor petitioner Master Manoj @ Monu as well as the class in which he was studying have nowhere been mentioned in the claim petition as well as in evidence by way of affidavit of his mother, Ms.Geeta Devi. However, in her cross examination by learned counsel for insurance company, PW1 Geeta Devi had clarified that her son had passed class IV examination and had been promoted to class V on the day of occurrence of the case accident itself, that is, on 01.04.2007. Moreover, as per Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 19 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 20 of 32 the Aadhar card of the petitioner, his date of birth is 17.07.1997 and accordingly, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner was aged about 09 years 08 months and 14 days at the time of occurrence of case of accident. Thus, even as per the Aadhar card of the petitioner, he was a school going child when he had sustained injuries in the case accident. Besides, it is mentioned in para 6 of the evidence by way of affidavit of mother of the petitioner PW1 Geeta Devi that the petitioner had lost an entire academic year due to the injuries sustained in the case accident. The mother of the petitioner has not been crossexamined on the issue of loss of an entire academic year studies suffered by the petitioner due to injuries sustained in the case accident.
15.2 Even otherwise, as per the MLC and discharge summary of the petitioner, he had sustained fracture of left pubic ranus in the case accident and had remained admitted at LNJPN Hospital, Delhi for about seven days with effect from 02 April 2007 to 08 April 2007. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the period of his hospitalization and the follow up treatment record relied upon by the petitioner, this tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have missed his school for considerable number of days during the relevant academic year. Accordingly this tribunal is also of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation for loss of studies for about one academic year. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/ under the said head of loss of studies.
16. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs.1,40,000 / which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/ 2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 40,000/
3. Attendant Charges Rs 20,000/ Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 20 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 21 of 32
4. Medical Expenses Nil.
5. Loss of studies Rs. 40,000/ Total Rs. 1,40,000/ ( Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand only) 16.1 In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) of the back the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present claim petition/DAR had been instituted on 05.07.2007 and the rate of interest on fixed deposits in nationalized banks had fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case also this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. w.e.f 05.07.2007 till realisation of the compensation amount. 16.2 The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
17. Liability 17.1 In the case in hand, Oriental Insurance Company Limited/R3 has not been able to show anything on record that R1/Thane Ram, who was the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence conferring authority upon him to drive the vehicle in question on a public road issued in his favour by the competent authority. Moreover, the insurance policy of the offending vehicle stood valid in favour of R2/Baleshwar as on the date of the occurrence of the alleged accident. As per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R3, hence R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law. However, it is a defence of Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 21 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 22 of 32 the insurance company that R2 was not having a valid permit to drive the offending vehicle on the particular route on which the alleged accident had taken place. In this context, learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the insurance company had issued a notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC calling upon R1 and R2 to produce the permit of the offending vehicle, however, neither any such permit was produced by R1 and R2 nor had they furnished any reply to the notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC.
17.2 I have considered the above submissions of learned counsel for the insurance company in the light of facts of the present case as well as in the light of law of precedents. In this context, a perusal of court record reveals that the accident in question had taken place on 01.04.2007 whereas the notice U/o XII Rule 8 of CPC was issued to R1 and R2 on 27.03.2014 nearly seven years after the occurrence of the case accident and in the intervening period R2/Sh. Baleshwar had sold the offending vehicle to a third person, namely, Sh. Tusnav Jindal S/o Sh. Braham Pal on 20.11.2012 as per the verification report of Sh. Manohar Lal, SurveyorcumInvestigator of the insurance company Ex.R3W1/2. Thus, from the documents relied upon by the insurance company itself, it is prima facie evident that the insurance company had unfortunately not taken any steps for verification of permit and other documents of the offending vehicle upto the year 2014 and had called upon R1 and R2 to produce permit the offending vehicle nearly seven years after the case accident as well as three years after R2 had sold the offending vehicle to some third person. Thereafter, the insurance company had waited for another year for getting the permit of the offending vehicle verified from the concerned R.T.O and one Charanjeet Singh, another Surveyorcuminvestigator of the insurance company had in the year 2015 attempted to conduct verification of permit of the offending vehicle. The report of this investigator dated 08.09.2015 Ex.R3W1/9 is also on record wherein it is Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 22 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 23 of 32 mentioned that the concerned RTO office, situated at Faridabad had refused to verify the permit of the offending vehicle on the ground that he (the said investigator) had failed to produce a copy of the permit before the concerned official of the RTO, Faridabad, Haryana for its due verification. In such circumstances, it is prima facie evident that no prompt and expeditious action had been taken by the insurance company for verification of the permit of the offending vehicle or for seeking production of permit of the offending vehicle from the owner of the offending vehicle and at a belated stage a notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC had been issued by the insurance company to complete an empty formality as well as to malafidely evade the liability to pay compensation to the victim of the case accident. Moreover, it is settled law that mere issuance of notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC by the insurance company does not establish the defence of the insurance company to the effect that the owner of the offending vehicle was not having in his possession a valid and effective permit of the offending vehicle as on the date of occurrence of the case accident. The insurance company was required to make sincere efforts to summon the concerned official from RTO, Faridabad with the record pertaining to the permit of the offending vehicle to prove its defence. However, no such effort has been made on the part of the insurance company.
17.3 It was similarly held by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Budhe Singh vs. Amman Khan & Anr. 2011 ACJ 2600 decided on 15.11.2010, that when no positive evidence had been led by the insurance company to establish that there was a breach of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy of the vehicle in question or the same was being run without a valid permit then the insurance company cannot get itself absolved from the liability to pay compensation to the victim of the case accident merely by issuing a notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC to the owner of the offending vehicle. Relevant Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 23 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 24 of 32 extract of observations made in para 7 of the judgement is reproduced herein below: "In the present matter, the insurance company has examined only one witness, i.e., Ashok Kumar Sharma, NAW 1, the Administrative Officer of the insurance company, but this witness has not specifically stated that the bus in question was running without permit. No investigation was done by the insurance company in this regard. There is no material on record showing that any inquiry was made by the insurance company from the concerned R.T.O. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon the notice, Exh. NA2 which was a general notice given by the insurance company to owner of the vehicle to produce the relevant documents such as R.R. book, permit, fitness certificate, driving licence etc. but from this notice and from the statement of Ashok Kumar Sharma, NAW 1, the burden of the insurance company is not discharged. There is no positive evidence on record on the part of the insurance company showing the breach of the policy condition or to establish that the vehicle in question was running without permit. The Claims Tribunal has committed an error in exonerating the insurance company on this ground. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is unsustainable and is hereby set aside by holding that no breach of the policy condition has been proved by the insurance company and the insurance company is liable to satisfy the award".
Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 24 of32
Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 25 of
32
In view of the afore cited observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pardesh in the decided case Budhe Singh vs. Amman Khan & Anr. (supra), it can be safely concluded that there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the insurance company to the effect that the insurance company is entitled to recovery rights on the ground that the offending vehicle was being driven without a valid permit at the relevant time. R3/insurance company is accordingly held liable to pay entire compensation amount to the victim.
17.4 Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., Oriental General Insurance Company Ltd./R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.1,50,000/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition/DAR till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
18. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP was recorded on 18.09.2019 regarding his savings bank a/c with endorsement of MACT claims SB Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 25 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 26 of 32 Account, no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding the financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment passed in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: 18.1 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, said statement of the petitioner/injured and clause 32 of MCTAP regarding protection of the award amount, it is hereby directed that on realization, an amount of Rs.1,40,000/, an amount of Rs.30,000/ be released to him in his MACT Claims SB A/c no.37734417267 with SBI, Jahangir Puri Branch, Delhi, as per rules, that is, the branch near his place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD) so that the maximum benefits can be availed by the petitioner. In case, the MACAD scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be kept in 18 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 18 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
18.2 The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003. However, till the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioner is not Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 26 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 27 of 32 put to any undue inconvenience, the fixed deposits shall be subject to following conditions:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim, that is, the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the court and Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 27 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 28 of 32 claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
19. Relief 19.1 As discussed above, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd./R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.1,40,000/ with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, 05.07.2007 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days. 19.2 R3 is 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 in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today. 19.3 A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
19.4 Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 28 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 29 of 32 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (02222741336/9414048606) {other detailsPersonal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioner was also recorded on 18.09.2019. The record would show that the relevant documents including copy of aadhar card, PAN card, copy of bank pass book and form 15G of the petitioner have already been supplied to the learned counsel for insurance co. on 18.09.2019 itself.
20. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR)
On 30th July 2022 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 29 of32
Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 30 of
32
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 01.04.2007
2. Name of injured: Manoj @ Monu
3. Age of the injured: About 9 years, 8 months and 14 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: Student
5. Income of the injured: Nil.
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: About 4 months.
8. Period of hospitalization: 7 days
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: Nil.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Nil.
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.20,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.20,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.20,000/
(v) Loss of studies Rs.40,000/
(vi) Any other loss which may require any N/A
special treatment or aid to the injured
for the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 30 of32
Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 31 of
32
(I) Compensation for mental and physical N/A
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life N/A
(iv) Disfiguration N/A
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
hardships, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and N/A nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity N/A in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X N/A %Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1,40,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.1,59,104/ award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 2,99,104/
18. Award amount released Rs.30,000/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.2,69,104/ Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 31 of32 Master Manoj @ Monu Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 32 of 32
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) clause 29 of MCTAP
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 30.08.2022 (Clause 31) Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR) On 30th July, 2022 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Satya Narayan Rao Vs. Thane Ram & Ors. Page 32 of32