Delhi District Court
Pappu (I)(Fir406/17/Burari) vs Keshav Mahta (Iffco Tokio) on 5 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010173882017
MACT No. : 1117/2017
FIR No. : 406/2017
PS : Burari
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Mr. Pappu (injured/petitioner)
S/o Sh. Kehri,
R/o House No. 124, Pocket-4, Sector A-6,
Punarvas Colony, Narela, North West Delhi,
Delhi-110040. ......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Keshav Mehta (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Rakesh Mehta,
R/o 11/231, Geeta Colony, Delhi.
2. Sh. Rakesh Mehta (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. P,N. Mehta,
R/o 11/231, Geeta Colony, Delhi.
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer)
FAI House, 10 Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutab Institutional Area,
New Delhi-110067. ......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 21.11.2017
Judgment reserved on : 10.09.2024
Date of Award : 05.10.2024
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 1 of 38
AWAR D
The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed on 21.11.2017
was registered as a Motor Accident Claim petition. The DAR revealed
that a Road Traffic Accident took place on 01.08.2017 at about 04:30
PM at Outer Ring Road towards Burari to Wazirabad near Gandhi Vihar
red light, Burari, Delhi wherein the petitioner, Pappu, had sustained
grievous injuries. The accident took place with a vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-9CL-8744 driven and owned by respondent no.1,
Sh. Keshav Mehta; owned by respondent no.2 Rakesh Mehta and
insured with respondent no.3, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co.
Limited.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on
01.08.2017, the information of an accident was received at P.S. Burari
vide DD No.38A. SI Ranvir Singh along with Ct. Vijender went to the
spot i.e. Outer Ring Road towards Burari to Wazirabad near Gandhi
Vihar Red Light, Burari, Delhi, where they found that the offending
vehicle bearing no. DL-9CL-8744 and TSR bearing no. DL-1RP-9467
were stationed at the spot in an accidental condition. The driver of the
offending vehicle was also present there who disclosed his name as
Keshav Mehta. He stated that the injured had been taken to Trauma
Centre Hospital, Civil Lines, Delhi in PCR Van. After leaving Ct.
Vijender, IO reached at the hospital and collected the MLC of injured
bearing no.10683. Thereafter, SI Ranvir returned at the spot and brought
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 2 of 38
the driver and the offending vehicle in the police station. Enquiry was
made from the driver of the offending vehicle and he was discharged
with the undertaking to join the investigation later.
3. On 02.08.2017, SI Ranvir went to the Trauma Centre and
recorded the statement of the injured, who stated that he was going to
drop two passengers from Singhu Border to Anand Vihar Railway
station in his auto and as he reached at the Outer Ring Road towards
Burari to Wazirabad near Gandhi Vihar Red light, Burari, Delhi, a car
make Swift Dzire bearing no. DL-9CL-8744 hit his auto from the back
side. He also stated that they were shifted to Trauma Centre Civil Lines,
Delhi with the help of the driver of the offending vehicle by PCR Van.
On the basis of MLC of the injured and statement of the injured, the FIR
No.1117/17 was registered under section 279/337 IPC at P.S. Burari.
4. During the course of investigation, the IO prepared the site
plan. Both the vehicles were deposited in Malkhana. Notice under
Section 133 M.V. Act was served upon the registered owner of the
offending vehicle who stated that his son Keshav Mehta was driving the
offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The IO arrested the driver
of the offending vehicle, however, since the offence was bailable, he
was released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds. The IO seized the
documents pertaining to the offending vehicle and got the same verified
from the concerned authorities. Later, both the vehicles were released on
superdari. The IO collected the MLC of the injured after final opinion as
per which, the injury was found to be 'grievous'. Therefore, section 338
of IPC was added in the FIR. After completion of the investigation,
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 3 of 38
chargesheet under section 279/338 IPC was filed against the driver
Keshav Mehta and DAR was filed before this Tribunal on 21.11.2017.
5. Written statement on behalf of respondent no.1 was filed on
14.11.2018. Respondent no. 2 did not file his written statement despite
various opportunities and therefore, his defence was struck off vide
order dated 14.11.2018. Written statement on behalf of respondent no.3
insurance company was filed on 27.03.2018.
ISSUES FRAMED
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
14.11.2018, this Tribunal had framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the petitioner Sh. Pappu suffered injuries in an accident
that took place on 01.08.2017 at about 16:30 hrs. involving Car bearing
registration no. DL-9CL-8744 driven by respondent no. 1 rashly and
negligently, owned by the Respondent no.2 and insured with the
Respondent no. 3? OPP.
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
EVIDENCE
7. To prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1,
Sh. Anil Kumar, Record Clerk from Sushruta Trauma Centre as PW-2
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 4 of 38
and Dr. Pawan Sarin from Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi as PW-3. The
respondents did not lead any evidence.
8. The Petitioner filed the Form XIV. Financial statement of
the petitioner has been recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf
of the petitioner and the respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
9. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld.
Counsels for the respondents and perused the record. My findings on the
various issues are as under:-
ISSUE No. 1:
Whether the petitioner Sh. Pappu suffered injuries in an accident
that took place on 01.08.2017 at about 16:30 hrs. involving Car bearing
registration no. DL-9CL-8744 driven by respondent no. 1 rashly and
negligently, owned by the Respondent no.2 and insured with the
Respondent no. 3? OPP.
10. Before delving into the facts of the current case to decide
the aforementioned issues, it is pertinent to highlight that it is firmly
established in legal precedents that the proceedings conducted before the
Claims Tribunal are in the nature of an inquiry. Further, procedural
approach adopted by an accident claims' tribunal mirrors that of a civil
court (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009
ACJ 287). In civil proceedings, the establishment of facts hinges on a
preponderance of probabilities, rather than being bound by the strict
rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt, as
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 5 of 38
required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in civil cases is lighter
than in criminal cases, and the burden to decide claim petition under The
Motor Vehicles Act is even lesser as compared to a civil litigation. In
Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors
(2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a
conclusion.
11. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legal principle for
adjudicating the present issue, this Tribunal has thoroughly gone through
the testimony of the witnesses and all the material available on record.
Also, careful consideration has been given to the arguments addressed
by the Learned Counsels for all the parties.
The factum of accident:
12. In this matter to prove the occurrence of the accident as
well as the rashness and negligence on the part of the driving of
offending vehicle by respondent no.1, the petitioner (PW-1) in his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A had deposed as under:-
"1...
2. That on 01.08.2017 at about 4.30 P.M. I was
driving my Auto/TSR bearing No. DL-1RP-9467
very carefully at normal speed by following all
traffic rules and regulations and was going to Anand
Vihar, Railway Station to drop two passengers from
Sindhu Border via Outer Ring Road and when I
reached at about 4.30 P.M. after crossing Burari
flyover towards Wazirabad on outer ring road , prior
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 6 of 38
to Gandhi Vihar Red Light then a Swift Dzire car
bearing no. DL-9CL-8744 came from back side in
rash, negligent and zig-zag manner, with
uncontrolled high speed, without observing the
traffic norms and without blowing horn hit to my
TSR from back side with great impact. The impact
was so powerful that I sustained grievous/dangerous
injuries on my left leg and my TSR collided with a
Tata 407 which was going ahead of me. The car
driver stopped his car and alighted from the car to
see me, he felt sorry. On enquiry he told me his
name Keshav Mehta. I immediately noted number
of that Swift Dzire car which was DL-9CL-8744,
white colour. Public gather over that place. They
caught the car and car driver Keshav Mehta on the
spot of accident. Someone informed on 100 number.
Within 10-15 minutes PCR van reached on the spot
of accident I was immediately removed to Sushruta
Trauma Centre, Civil Lines Delhi by PCR van where
my MLC No. 10683/2017 was prepared and
admitted in the hospital due to my serious condition.
Police also came in the hospital for recording my
statement but cold not record my statement due at
that time due to my serious condition. Police
recorded my statement on next day of the accident.
The FIR was also lodged on my statement. I am also
eye-witness in criminal case. The above accident
took place due to sole rash, negligent and zig-zag
driving by Keshav Mehta, the driver of Swift Dzire
car bearing no. DL-9CL-8744.
3. That in this accident I sustained Displaced
fracture shaft of Femur Left. After the accident I
was immediately removed to Sushruta Trauma
Centre, Civil Lines where my MLC No. 10683/017
was prepared and admitted in the hospital due to my
serious condition. During remaining in the Hospital
my Left leg was operated by ORIF with DFLP 7
Hole (Titanium) unimed on 02.08.2017 and
discharged on 04.08.2017. Thereafter I was treated
as an OPD patient. I was under treatment for
approx. two years. Due to injuries sustained in this
accident my left leg became permanent disabled.
Now I cannot stand for long time, run, play, sit in
squatting position, swim, drive and board the
vehicle, ascend stairs and any strenuous work from
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 7 of 38
my left leg for whole life. Due to this accident and
permanent disability I have also lost my earning for
whole life and have lost my future. My original
discharge summary of Sushruta Trauma Centre,
Civil Lines, Delhi is Ex. PW-1/1. My original
treatment papers and OPD cards are Ex. PW-1/2 to
Ex. PW-1/6.
4. That I have spent more than Rs. 30,000/- on my
treatment including Medicinal bills, doctor's fees, X-
Ray, investigations and physiotherapy etc. My
original medical-bills of Rs. 18,584/- are collectively
Ex. PW-1/7 (Colly. 3 bills). Rest of the bills and
some treatment papers are misplaced. I have also
spent approx. Rs. 200 per day on nutritious and high
protein diet like milk, fruits, juices, paneer, soups
protein X powder etc. and spent total Rs. 25,000/- to
30,000/- on special diet. I have also spent
Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- on conveyance. After my
accident, due to multiple fractures of left leg,
operations, severe pain and permanent disability of
my left leg, I was completely on bed, at that time my
wife who was doing the work of maid servant in four
kothis of Narela and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m.,
looked after me for six months and at that time she
could not go for her work and has lost had earnings
Rs. 60,000/- due to my accident. Still I am not well
from the date of accident.
5. That at the time of accident my age was 39 years
as my date of birth is 01.01.1978 and was TSR/auto
driver and earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m., I have lost my
wallet in this accident which contained Rs. 300/- &
my driving license. I was under treatment for
approx. two years and could not work and lost my
earning at that time and thereafter due to permanent
disability of my left leg I am unable to drive TSR
and have lost my profession. If I had not met with
the accident, I must have earned more than
Rs.35,000/- p.m. in future due to inflation and rise in
price index every year and as my income was also
increasing every year. Due to my permanent
disability my working capacity has reduced by 75%,
now I cannot do any work fast, frequently and
continuously, cannot stand for long time, run, play,
sit in squatting position, ascend stairs, lift weight,
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 8 of 38
drive and board the vehicle and any strenuous
physical activity through my left leg and have to
spend more money on conveyance for my whole life
and have lost my future. Due to the accident I am
also undergoing untold mental and physical pain,
agony, torture, disfiguration, discomfort, hardship,
disappointment, frustration, mental stress,
humiliation and inconvenience, loss of income,
amenities, life enjoyment, security and social status
etc. The copies of my PAN Card & Aadhaar Card
are Ex. PW-1/8 & Ex. PW-1/9 respectively.
...
9. That I have not filed any other claim petition anywhere in India except the present DAR. The DAR is collectively Ex. PW-1/10."
13. PW-1 has proved the factum of the accident and the identity of respondent no.1. He has unequivocally testified that respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which led to the accident in question. He has deposed that he was an auto driver and on the date of the accident, he was going to Anand Vihar, Railway Station to drop the two passengers from Singhu Border via Outer Ring Road and at about 4.30 P.M., when he reached Outer Ring Road, before Gandhi Vihar Red Light after crossing Burari flyover towards Wazirabad, a Swift Dzire car bearing no. DL-9CL-8744 came from back side in a rash, negligent and zig-zag manner, with uncontrolled high speed, without observing the traffic norms and without blowing horn and hit his TSR from back side with great impact due to which, he sustained grievous/dangerous injuries on his left leg. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 argued that while it is the case of the petitioner that his TSR was hit from back side but there is no damage on the back side of the TSR. He argued that the TSR had MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 9 of 38 actually hit one TATA 407 truck and the front portion of the TSR is also damaged. He submitted that the TSR driver/petitioner was himself negligent in hitting the TATA 407 and not respondent no. 1. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 pointed out that the petitioner/ injured has admitted in his cross-examination that the front portion of his TSR was damaged and also that he had hit TATA 407. However, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner/injured has clarified that the offending vehicle had hit the TSR and then the TSR had hit the TATA
407. He also argued that it is the respondent no. 1 that had hit the TSR due to which the accident took place. The deposition of PW-1 as to the manner of the accident and the driving of the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent no. 1 is categorical. He has specifically deposed that he had hit the TATA 407 but after the respondent no. 1 hit his TSR. He has also denied the suggestion that he was driving his TSR in a rash and negligent manner.
14. Moreover, the petitioner had no prior acquaintance with respondent no.1 before the accident, and it is undisputed that there existed no pre-existing animosity between them. Therefore, it defies every logic as to why the petitioner would falsely implicate respondent no.1 if he was not the one driving the offending vehicle. Further, Respondent no.1 has not led any evidence to prove as to why and how the petitioner was responsible for the accident. A mere bald statement cannot help him escape his liability. No convincing material has been brought on record by the respondent no.1 to show that the accident did not take place due to his fault or that he was not rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle. From the testimony of PW-1 and MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 10 of 38 entire record, it stands proved that respondent no.1 acted in a rash and negligent manner while driving his vehicle due to which the petitioner suffered grievous injuries.
15. Furthermore, in view of filing of DAR containing the charge-sheet for the offences u/s 279/338 IPC and other relevant documents against the respondent no. 1 and in terms of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, respondent no. 1 Keshav Mehta (driver of the offending vehicle) is held to be negligent on the basis of preponderance of probability. From the DAR, it also stands established that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 Mr. Rakesh Mehta and insured with respondent no. 3, IIFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy no. 50872659 valid from 01.03.2017 to 28.02.2018.
The injury:
16. The petitioner (PW-1) testified that due to the accident, he sustained grievous injuries in his left leg due to which has become permanently disabled. He asserted that upon the accident, he was taken to Sushruta Trauma Centre where he was treated vide MLC no.
10683/2018 dated 01.08.2017 and the alleged history has been mentioned as road traffic accident. He remained admitted in the said hospital from 01.08.2017 to 04.08.2017. During his stay at the hospital, his left leg was operated by ORIF with DFLP 7 HOLE (TITANIUM) UNIMED. To prove the medical treatment record in Sushruta Trauma Centre, the petitioner has also examined PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar, Record MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 11 of 38 Clerk.
17. Furthermore, the petitioner had filed an application to be examined for assessment of physical disability. He was examined by the Medical Board at Hindu Rao Hospital and vide certificate bearing No. 05/2023 dated 22.03.2023, it has been observed that the petitioner is a case of "OLD TREATED FRACTURE FEMUR (LT) WITH IMPLANT IN SITU" and the Board was of the opinion that he has 43 % permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb.
18. To prove the disability, the petitioner also examined Dr. Pawan Kumar, M.S., DNB, MNAMS, Professor of Orthopaedics, Hindu Rao Hospital as PW-3 who deposed as under:
" I am a summoned witness. Today, I have brought the original permanent disability certificate record of injured Pappu S/o Sh. Kehri Singh aged 45 years. As per our record, the injured Pappu was examined by the disability medical board at Hindu Rao Hospital in which I examined the injured and issued disability certificate number 05/2023 dated 22.03.2023 and found that injured Pappu was suffering 43 % permanent physical disability in relation to his left lower limb as it is a case of locomotor disability. The disability of the injured is permanent in nature and not likely to improve in future. Due to this permanent disability the injured can not stand without support and also cannot work without support, run and has partial loss of ability to squat. This permanent Disability Certificate issued by Hindu Rao Hospital which bears my signatures at point-A & B and permanent disability certificate is Ex. PW-3/1. The injuries mentioned in this permanent disability certificate is also related with the MLC, Discharge Summary and Treatment papers of the injured."MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 12 of 38
19. From the above deposition and in totality of the circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to bring on record sufficient facts so as to prove at the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-9CL-8744 by its driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury and permanent disability of 43 % in relation to his left lower limb. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
20. The onus of proving the above issue was upon the petitioner/injured. It has already been concluded in the preceding paragraphs while deciding the issue no. 1, that the petitioner had suffered grievous injury and he has permanent disability of 43 % in relation to his left lower limb.
21. The petitioner is certainly entitled for compensation in view of decision of the discussion on the above issues. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its guiding lamp post judgment for ascertaining just compensation in road vehicular injury cases. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 13 of 38 SCC 34, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, 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;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 14 of 38
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i),
(ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads
(ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item
(i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) --
depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv),
(v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item
(ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability.
6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 15 of 38 achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 16 of 388. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 17 of 38 disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
(iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 18 of 38 loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may."
22. In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. However, in cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the claim of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The assessment of future medical expenses would depend upon specific medical MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 19 of 38 evidence/advise for further treatment and costs thereof. The determination of damages on account of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life would depend upon the age of victim, nature of injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and the effect thereof on life of the petitioner. The process would involve determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those heads. In the case of assessment of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, this Tribunal needs to first ascertain whether the disability noted/assessed by the medical board is temporary or permanent in nature. If the disability is permanent in nature, then whether it is a total permanent disability or partial permanent disability. If the disability has been referred/expressed in percentage terms, in reference to any specific limb then the effect of such disability of the limb on the function of entire body has to be ascertained. Once, the permanent disability is ascertained, then the Tribunal needs to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect the earning capacity of the claimant. To ascertain the same, the Tribunal needs to ascertain the avocation, profession and nature of work of the claimant before the incident. The Tribunal also needs to ascertain his age and then needs to ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of permanent disability and what he could not do as result of same. The Tribunal then also needs to ascertain whether the claimant is totality disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on activities and functions which he was carrying on earlier or whether the claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 20 of 38 activities and functions to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood despite permanent disability suffered. After ascertaining the functional disability through the above process, the Tribunal needs to workout the loss of earning capacity per month. The Tribunal is thereafter required to workout loss of earning capacity per annum. An appropriate multiplier needs to be ascertained as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC according to age of the injured/victim. The total loss of earning capacity then needs to be worked out multiplying appropriate multiplier ascertained with ascertained annual loss of earning capacity. This is a case where permanent disability is claimed and compensation is also demanded qua future loss of earnings on account of permanent disability, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above preposition.
Determination of Injuries and Duration of the Treatment:
23. It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner/injured and duration of treatment as they need to be kept in mind while ascertaining the compensation under different applicable heads. The petitioner has filed his medical record to prove his nature of injuries as per which, injured has suffered grievous injuries in the incident in question. It has also been proved that he has suffered 43% disability in relation to his left lower limb. It has also been proved that the petitioner was hospitalised from the date of accident i.e. 01.08.2017 till 04.08.2017 in Sushruta Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi. Thus, his compensation is computed as follows:
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 21 of 38Medical expenses:
24. The petitioner has claimed Rs.18,584/- towards medical expenses in his evidence as well as in Form-XIV. In this regard, the petitioner has placed reliance on the following original medical bills:Table No. 1
S. HOSPITAL/PHARMACY NAME BILL NO. BILL DATE AMOUNT (in Rupees) No.
1. UNIMED SURGICAL 006 03.08.2017 17,304 2. MUKESH ORTHOPAEDIC & MRD No. 11.11.2017 500 TRAUMA CENTRE 4134
3. DEEPAK MEDICOS 13787 11.11.2017 580 TOTAL Rs. 18,584/-
25. All the bills appear to be proper. Therefore, the petitioner/ injured Pappu shall be entitled to Rs.18,584/- towards medical expenses.
Loss of income:
26. Coming to the aspect of loss of income, the petitioner Pappu claimed that he was an auto driver and was earning Rs.20,000/-
per month, however, he has not filed any document on record to prove the same. Thus, his income will have to be assessed as per the minimum wages. The petitioner has filed on record his Aadhar card bearing no. 7660 6919 8103 as per which he was a resident of Delhi but no educational qualification or special skill has been placed on record. Therefore, in the absence of proof of employment and income and considering his address to be of Delhi, the minimum wages for an unskilled labour prevalent in Delhi at the time of the accident (on MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 22 of 38 01.08.2017) i.e. Rs. 13,584/- is taken as the income of the petitioner/ injured Pappu. Therefore, it is held that the monthly income of the petitioner/injured Pappu at the time of the accident i.e. on 01.08.2017 was Rs.13,584/-. Further, the petitioner has claimed that he was not able to work for 12 months but he has not filed any such document on record to prove that he was not able to work at all for 12 months. However, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as his period of hospitalisation, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to the Loss of Income for 6 months i.e. Rs. 13,584/- x 6 = Rs.81,504/-.
Pain and Suffering:
27. The petitioner/ injured has claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head pain and suffering. It is true that a particular amount cannot be fixed under the head pain and suffering which could be applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner has received grievous injuries, therefore, petitioner must have suffered pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner as mentioned in the MLC as well as the disability certificate, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-
towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental shock:
28. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under this head.MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 23 of 38
Special Diet:
29. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 30,000/- under the head special diet but there is no cogent evidence on record regarding money spent by the petitioner upon special diet. However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this head.
Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet.
Conveyance charges:
30. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 30,000/- under the head conveyance charges but there is no cogent evidence for the same.
However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have incurred some expense on conveyance. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
31. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 60,000/- under the head attendant charges. He deposed that his wife was working as maid in four kothies of Narela and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month but due to the accident, she could not go to her work for six month to look after him. There is no cogent evidence to prove that his wife was working.
However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 24 of 38 injured/petitioner, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges.
Compensation for disfiguration:
32. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- under this head. Taking into account the injuries suffered by him and also noticing the disability suffered by him, Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Compensation for loss of amenities:
33. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs.1,50,000/- under this head. The petitioner has not filed anything on record to prove his claim to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities. However, taking into account the injuries suffered by him and also noticing the disability suffered by him, Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Compensation for loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
34. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under this head.
Future loss of income:
35. The petitioner Pappu has claimed loss of future earning to MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 25 of 38 the extent of Rs. 14,46,606/- in his Form XIV. It has already been established that the petitioner has suffered 43% permanent disability in relation to his lower left limb. The petitioner has pleaded that the functional disability of the petitioner shall be considered to be 43% as he was an auto driver and due to said permanent disability, he is no more able to drive. This Tribunal is of the view that the disability suffered by the petitioner is going to greatly affect his earning as he was an auto driver and due to 43% disability in his left lower limb, he may not be able to reasonably drive the TSR. Therefore, the functional disability of the petitioner is also assessed at 43% in relation to the whole body for the purposes of calculating the compensation. The income of the petitioner has been assessed as Rs.13,584/- as on the date of accident.
36. As per the Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the injured/ petitioner Pappu is 01.01.1978, thus, as on the date of accident i.e. 01.08.2017, the petitioner was aged 39 years 7 months. Thus, he was more than 39 years old and less than 40 years of age on the date of the accident. Accordingly, the Multiplier of fifteen (15) is taken for purposes of calculating the loss of income of the petitioner (Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision - 31.10.2017). Further, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the future prospects of Pappu shall be 40% as he was self employed and was below the age of 40 years at the time of accident on 01.08.2017.MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 26 of 38
37. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 13,584/-In view of the above, the loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs. 13,584/-
Annual Income Rs. 13,584/- x 12 =
Rs. 1,63,008/-
Add Future Prospects @ 40% Rs. 1,63,008/- x 40% =
Rs. 65,203.20/-
Total income Rs. 2,28,211.20/-
Disability @ 43% Rs. 2,28,211.20/- x 90%= Rs. 98,130.81/-
Loss of Income after multiplier (15) Rs. 98,130.81/- x 15 = Rs. 14,71,962.24/-
(rounded off to Rs. 14,71,962/-)
38. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 14,71,962/- under the head future loss of income.
39. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees)
Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 18,584/-
Monthly income of injured Rs. 13,584/-
Loss of income for 06 months Rs. 13,584 x 6/- = Rs. 81,504/-
Add future prospects @ 40% Rs. 13,584 x 12 x 40% =
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 27 of 38
Rs. 65,203.20/-
Loss of future income (income X % Rs. 2,28,211.20/- x 90% x 15 = Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Rs. 14,71,962.24/-
(rounded off to Rs. 14,71,962/-) Any other loss/expenditure Nil.
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 1,50,000 Suffering Special diet Rs. 20,000/-
Attendant charges Rs. 20,000/- Conveyance charges Rs. 20,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000/- Disfiguration Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of Marriage prospects Nil. Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil. hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 19,82,050/-
40. In the case of Benson George v Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 2022 decided on 25.02.2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded an interest of 6% per annum. In the present case, the interest was stopped vide order dated 20.12.2022 till the conclusion of PE which was closed on 13.09.2023. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 21.11.2017 till 20.12.2022 and then again from 13.09.2023 till realization.
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 28 of 38DISBURSEMENT
41. The Financial Statement of the petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 22,000/- to 25,000/- per month.
42. Keeping in view the above as well as the fact that the petitioner has already spent a huge amount on his treatment, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 19,82,050/- (Rupees Nineteen Lacs Eighty Two Thousand and Fifty only), Rs. 1,82,050/- (Rupees One Lac Eighty Two Thousand and Fifty only) plus entire interest amount be released to the petitioner/claimant Pappu and the balance amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) shall be put in 72 monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 72 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
43. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to the petitioner only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account in a bank near his residence with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 29 of 38 without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
44. The above FDR(s) shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be 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 MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 30 of 38 compliance.
45. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 01.08.2017
2. Name of the Injured: Pappu
3. Age of the Injured: 39 years
4. Occupation of the Injured: Unskilled labour
5. Income of the Injured: Rs. 13,584/-
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken: Sushruta Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi.
8. Period of Hospitalization: 01.08.2017 to 04.08.2017
9. Whether any permanent 43 % disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 18,584/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 20,000/-
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 31 of 38
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 20,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 13,584/-
(vi) Loss of income of 06 months Rs. 81,504/-
(vii) Add future prospects @ 40 % Rs. 13,584 x 12 x 40% =
Rs. 65,203.20/-
(viii) Any other loss which may Nil.
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life: future treatment and
future attendant charges.
2.
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 1,50,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration
Rs. 1,00,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil.
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 43% Permanent and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil expectation of life span on MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 32 of 38 account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 43% capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income Rs. 2,28,211.20/- x 90% x 15 = x % earning capacity x Rs. 14,71,962.24/-
Multiplier) (rounded off to Rs. 14,71,962/-)
4. Total Rs. 19,82,050/-
1(i+ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(ii+iii+iv) +
3(iv)
5. Total Compensation Rs. 19,82,050/-
Interest awarded 6%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous
award passed by Ld. -
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 7,27,082/-
award (06 years 1 month and 11
days)
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 27,09,132/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 42
10. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para no. 42
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 42
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 05.11.2024
award
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 33 of 38
LIABILITY:
46. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1, Mr. Keshav Mehta; owned by respondent no. 2, Mr. Rakesh Mehta and insured with respondent no. 3, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Thus, respondent no. 3 shall pay the award amount to the petitioner.
Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
RELIEF
47. The respondent no.3 - IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 19,82,050/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand and Fifty only) along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 21.11.2017 till 20.12.2022 and then again from 13.09.2023 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant, failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
48. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 34 of 38 of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 05.11.2024 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed RUCHI by RUCHI
AGGARWAL
Announced in the open Court today AGGARWAL ASRANI
ASRANI
on this 5th day of October, 2024. Date: 2024.10.05 16:47:10 +0530 (Dr. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 35 of 38FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 01.08.2017 2 Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Report (FAR) Not mentioned 3 Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) Not mentioned 4 Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver Not mentioned 5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner Not mentioned 6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance of Not mentioned the vehicle 7 Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form VIB from the Victim(s) Not mentioned 8 Date of filing of Form-VII - 21.11.2017 Detail Accident Report (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, No. whether any action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Company Not provided 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 Yes. MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 36 of 38 days of the DAR? 12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the No. Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer of the No response Insurance Company. 14 Date of award 05.10.2024 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank Yes. account(s) near their place of residence? 16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhar 04.06.2024 Card and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). 17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account(s) near the 30.07.2024 place of their residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card? 18 Permanent residential address of As per Award. the claimant(s). 19 Whether the claimant(s) savings Yes. MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 37 of 38 bank account(s) is near their place of residence? 20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing Yes. The Financial Statement of the of the Award to ascertain claimant was recorded 30.07.2024. his/their financial condition? Digitally signed by RUCHI RUCHI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL ASRANI ASRANI Date: 2024.10.05 16:47:29 +0530 (Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani) PO, MACT-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 05.10.2024 MACT No.1117/2017 Pappu Vs. Keshav Mehta and ors. Page 38 of 38