Delhi District Court
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 1 Of 30 on 5 September, 2018
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 1 of 30
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL : JUDGE : MOTOR ACCIDENTS
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :NORTH WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
New No. 4940716
MACT PETITION No. : 174/13
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010002162013
Sh. Jagjot Singh S/o Sh. Paramjeet Singh
R/o K75, New Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi18
(petitioner is in comma since accident and represented through his
father Sh. Paramjeet Singh)
........ Petitioner/claimant
Vs.
1. Sh. Om Prakash
R/o C28, Nehur Vihar, Delhi.
....... Driver cum Owner /R1
2. United India Insurance co Ltd.
Delhi.
....... Insurance co./R2
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 16.01.2013
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 05.09.2018
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.09.2018
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN CLAUSE 4.3 OF THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003
RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. & SOBAT SINGH VS
RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA & ANR., MAC.APP 422/2009 VIDE
ORDER DATED 15.12.2017
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 1 of 30
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 2 of 30
1. Date of the accident 15.10.2012
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 16.01.2013
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
(Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 16.01.2013
investigating officer to the insurance company.
(Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Not mentioned in the
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate DAR
(Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 16.01.2013
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 16.01.2013
Company (Clause 11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 16.01.2013
(Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed N/A
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes.
filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No.
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 16.01.2013
by the insurance Company. (Clause20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. R.P. Mathur
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Advocate
(Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No.
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? (Clause 20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No.
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of
the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N/A
the part of the Designated Officer of the
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 2 of 30
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 3 of 30
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer No legal offer given.
of the Insurance Company .(Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 05.09.2018
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 09.02.2018
directed 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). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 27.03.2018
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
(Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s) (Clause 27)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Sh.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Paramjeet
IFSC Code (Clause 27) Singh(father of
petitioner)savings
bank a/c no.
37590605500 with
SBI Bank, Ganesh
Nagar Branch, Delhi,
IFSC : SBIN0016119
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award. (Clause 27)
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the 110002427,
Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is to SBIN0010323, SBI,
be deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Rohini Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 3 of 30
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 4 of 30
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) was filed in this case on 16.01.2013 with reference to FIR No. 264/12 U/s 279/337 IPC PS Adarsh Nagar in respect of grievous hurt sustained by the petitioner Sh. Jagjot Singh in a road accident on 15.10.2012 at about 7:15 am under pass at road of Azadpur Flyover, Delhi. The ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 09.04.2013 treated the same as petition u/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act').
It is pertinent to note that the petitioner since the date of accident is in persistent vegetative state with Ryles Tube feeding which is also mentioned in the medical certificate dated 04.04.18 of Dr. RML hospital.
2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the DAR/file are that on 15.10.2012 the petitioner/injured was driving his motorcycle No. DL8S AL3177(Yamaha Gladiator of black colour). Petitioner was returning towards his residence at Jahangirpuri via under pass of Azadpur flyover. At about 7:15 am when he reached on under pass road of Azadpur Flyover, Delhi, then a Bajaj Auto delivery van bearing registration No. DL1L/H2754 (Champion auto of green colour) (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') which was being driven by its driver Sh. Om Prakash/R1 at a very high speed, rashly and negligently came from wrong side from front side and hit the motorcycle of petitioner. Due to the impact, the petitioner along with motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. R1 fled from the spot after leaving the offending vehicle there. The petitioner was shifted by PCR to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Metcalf Road near ISBT, Delhi and from there petitioner was shifted to Fortis hospital at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
FIR No.246/12 PS Adarsh Nagar U/s 279/337 IPC was registered in 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 4 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 5 of 30 this case and subsequently a charge sheet U/s 279/338 IPC was filed against R1/Driver/Sh. Om Prakash.
3. Sh. Om Prakash/R1/driver cum owner offending vehicle has filed his written statement wherein he has stated that the offending vehicle was insured with United India Insurance co. Ltd at the time of accident. He has stated that accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the motorcyclist and he was having no fault in it. He has further stated that he was having a valid driving licence and all other relevant documents of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
4. The record would show that United India Insurance Co. Ltd./R2 has not filed any legal offer/written statement, however, it is an admitted position during arguments that offending vehicle was insured with it.
5. Following issues were framed by learned Predecessor of this court vide order dated 01.12.2015 as under :
1. Whether on 15.10.2012 at about 9:10 am (time should be 7:15 am and be read accordingly), at Azadpur flyover under pass Delhi, Azadpur, one champion Auto green colour bearing registration no. DL1LH2754, which was being driven rashly and negligent by Om Prakash hit the motorcycle make Yamaha Gladiator of black colour bearing registration no. DL8SAL3177 and caused injuries to Jagjot Singh?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
Sh. Paramjeet Singh who is father of the petitioner/injured Jagjot Singh (who is in comma) in support of his case has examined Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Record Clerk, Sushruta Trauma Centre, Metcalf Road, Delhi as PW1, Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Record Clerk, Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh as PW2, Dr. S. Bhaskar, Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Dr. RML Hospital as PW3, Sh. Paramjeet Singh (father) as PW4, Ms. Laxmi, Record Clerk, RML hospital as PW5, Sh.
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 5 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 6 of 30Mahender Kumar (eye witness) as PW6 and Sh. Kapil Anand, attendant as PW7.
R1 examined himself as R1W1 and no other witness was examined by him.
The record would show that Insurance co/R2 has not examined any witness in support of its case.
6. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsel for petitioner and ld counsel for insurance co. I have carefully perused the record.
Ld counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Pritam Singh vs Oriental Insurance Co., II(2016) ACC 747(Del.).
Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
7. Issue wise findings are as under: Issue No.1 The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities is on the petitioner.
Father of petitioner has examined Sh. Mahender Kumar (eye witness) as PW6. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW6/A. He has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW6/A that on 15.10.12 he took a three wheeler scooter from his residence at Sant Nagar, Burari to go to Kingsway camp and after alighting from the three wheeler scooter at kingsway camp bus stand, he further took another three wheeler scooter to go to Jahangirpuri via under pass of Azadpur Flyover to meet his sister. PW6 deposed that at about 07:15 am when he reached on road of under pass of Azadpur flyover then he saw a Bajaj Auto delivery van bearing its registration no. DL1LH2754 (offending vehicle) which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in a zig zag way, rashly and negligently came from wrong side 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 6 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 7 of 30 from front side and hit the motorcycle no. DL8SAL3177 which was being driven by Sh. Jagjot Singh/petitioner/injured at a very normal speed and on the correct right hand side of the road. He deposed that due to said impact the motorcyclist along with his motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained serious/grievous injuries. He deposed that Sh. Omprakash/R1 fled away from the spot after leaving the offending vehicle at the spot. He deposed that someone from the crowd informed the police and PCR van came at the spot who admitted the petitioner in the hospital. He deposed that offending vehicle was seized by the police from the spot. He deposed that his statement was also recorded by the police. He deposed that the said accident took place solely and entirely due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver Sh. Om Prakash/R1.
PW6 was cross examined on behalf of respondent no.1 wherein he has inter alia deposed that he started from his home at about 6:30 am and reached at Kingsway camp chowk at about 6:55 am. He deposed that one could reach from Kingsway camp to Jahangirpuri in an auto within 1520 minutes in early morning hours and registration number of the offending vehicle was DL1LH2754. He denied the suggestion that he had told the number of the offending vehicle as DL 1LN2754 to the police. He deposed that head on collision of the vehicles had taken place. He denied the suggestions that the motorcycle had collided with the offending vehicle from behind or that the motorcycle driver was driving it rashly and negligently and at a high speed. He deposed that IO had told him the name of the victim as well as driver of the offending vehicle after two days of the accident at the PS. He deposed that he had told to the police in his statement that the driver of the offending vehicle had fled away from the spot after the accident. He denied the suggestion that he had not told to the police the said fact in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. He deposed that police did not seize any vehicle in this case in his presence. He denied the suggestion 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 7 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 8 of 30 that he was not an eye witness to the case accident or that he was a false witness.
PW6 was also cross examined on behalf of ld counsel for insurance co/R2 wherein he deposed that he was not a summoned witness and that he was not previously acquainted with the father of injured. He deposed that after getting knowledge about him from the PS, the father of the injured came to his house and requested him to depose in the present matter.
Nothing material has come on record in cross examination of PW6 to shake his version regarding the manner in which the said accident was caused by R1 while driving the above said offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
In the facts and circumstances, the copies of FIR and charge sheet u/s 279/338 IPC against respondent no. 1 can also be looked into to determine the negligence on the part of respondent. Sh. Om Prakash/R1 himself tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. R1W1. He inter alia deposed that the alleged incident was not caused due to his negligence and he has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. He deposed that the injured/petitioner was driving his vehicle in negligent manner and as such sustained injuries due to his own negligence. He deposed that the offending vehicle was under insurance cover of R2, he was having all the relevant documents of the offending vehicle and he was also having a valid driving licence.
He was cross examined by ld counsel for petitioner where he inter alia deposed that he was going on the alleged date of accident from Nehru Vihar to Azadpur Mandi and front portion of his tempo bearing registration no. DL1LH2754 had hit the front portion of motorcycle of injured Sh. Jagjot Singh. He denied the suggestion that he was driving his tempo on the wrong side of the road i.e. from Azadpur Mandi towards Model Town side. He has admitted that he had 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 8 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 9 of 30 not lodged any complaint in writing against his false implication before any higher authority i.e. either judicial or police. He admitted that he did not know the injured prior to the accident and that he had no enmity with the injured or his family or any police officials of PS Adarsh Nagar. He denied the suggestions that accident occurred due to his own rash and negligent driving of above said tempo or that he was driving the aforesaid tempo on the wrong side of the road due to traffic jam at Azadpur Mandi or that there was no negligent on the part of injured Sh. Jagjot Singh who was driving his motorcycle at a very normal speed and on the correct side of the road.
R1 has as R1W1 admitted the case accident and has further admitted that the front portions of both the vehicles had collided. His testimony to the effect that he was not negligent is belied by the fact that he has admitted in his cross examination that he did not lodge any complaint in writing against his false implication before any higher authority including judicial or police. His testimony to that effect thus is unreliable and inconsequential to the outcome of the case. There is thus nothing on record to suggest even remotely that R1 did not cause the said accident in the manner as deposed on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of material as placed on record and in view of above discussion, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner and hence, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents to the effect that the case accident was caused by R1 while driving the above said offending vehicle negligently and that the petitioner suffered injuries in the said accident in question due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1.
Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 9 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 10 of 308. Issue no. 2.
In view of findings on issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled to compensation.
PW1 Sh. Rajesh Kumar who is a record clerk from Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi proved the treatment record of the petitioner. He deposed that the said patient was admitted in the said hospital on 15.10.2012 and was discharged as LAMA on 16.10.2012. The copy of the treatment record of the said hospital has been proved as Ex. PW1/A (colly).
PW2 Sh. Pradeep Sharma was the record clerk of the Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi who proved his authority letter as Ex. PW2/A. He brought the summoned record and deposed that the petitioner was admitted as a patient in the said hospital on 16.10.2012 and was discharged on 09.11.2012. The copy of entire treatment record of said hospital is Ex. PW2/B (colly). The computerised final bill of the petitioner has been proved as Ex. PW2/C (colly). He deposed that the entire payment of bill of Rs.8,20,000/ had been received by their hospital.
In cross examination, PW2 inter alia deposed that the original discharge slip and bills are handed over to the patient and its copy are kept on the record of the hospital.
PW3 Dr. S. Bhaskar, Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Dr. RML hospital, New, Delhi proved the permanent disability certificate of the petitioner/injured as Ex. PW3/1. He deposed that as per record, the patient/petitioner was a case of a head injury and that he is in permanent vegetative state (patient is in comma).
Ex. PW3/1 would show that the said disability certificate mentions that petitioner was a case of post head injury and his disability was 100% in view of altered sensorium.
PW3 in his cross examination inter alia deposed that the disability was corelated with the injury mentioned in the MLC and treatment record and that the disability was due to accidental injury.
PW4 Mr. Paramjeet Singh is the father and natural guardian of 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 10 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 11 of 30 the petitioner who has filed and proved his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW4/A. He inter alia deposed to the effect that the injured/petitioner Mr. Jagjot Singh was lying in coma from the date of accident i.e. 15.10.2012 till as on date. He deposed that after the accident his son was removed by PCR van to Sushruta Trauma Centre, on 16.10.2012 he was shifted from there to Fortis hospital Shalimar Bagh from where he was discharged on 09.11.2012, on 11.11.2012 he was admitted in RML hospital was discharged on 15.12.2012 and he thereafter took him in the OPD of said hospital till 05.07.2013. The petitioner was again admitted at Dr. RML hospital on 05.07.2013 from where he was discharged on 15.07.2013 with the advise of physiotherapy at home. The petitioner was thereafter taken in the OPD of Dr. RML hospital till 19.02.2014. The petitioner was again admitted at Dr. RML hospital on 19.02.2014 and was discharged on 01.03.2014. At the time of discharge, the patient was advised to continue Ryle's tube feeding and the petitioner was taken to the OPD of said hospital till 01.06.2015. On 01.06.2015, the petitioner was again admitted at Dr. RML hospital and was discharged on 01.07.2015 and during that period the treatment of bed sores etc was done and the petitioner was taken to the OPD of said hospital till 30.12.2015. Petitioner was admitted in the said hospital again on 30.12.2015 and was discharged on 14.02.2016 from medicine department and on 20.02.2016 from neurosurgery department and the petitioner was taken to the OPD of said hospital till 04.08.2016. On 04.08.2016 the petitioner was again admitted at Dr. RML hospital and discharged on 02.09.2016 and was taken to the OPD of said hospital till 28.12.2016. He deposed that the petitioner who was in coma with 100% locomotor disability required assistance in bathing, wearing clothes, movement in bed to turn on both sides for which he requires attendant and would also require attendant in future throughout his life. He deposed that he cannot take food from his mouth.
PW4 also filed additional evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW4/B wherein he again deposed that the petitioner was in coma from the date of the accident due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and was unable 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 11 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 12 of 30 to appear and to depose before the court. He deposed that he (PW4) was earlier examined as a witness in this case and that on 25.01.2017 he took the petitioner to the OPD of Dr. RML where he was advised to continue to feed him through Ryle's tube (RT) with physiotherapy and medicines. He deposed that on 01.03.2017, 22.03.2017, 26.04.2017, 24.05.2017, 21.06.2017, 26.07.2017 and 04.10.2017, he again took his son/petitioner to the OPD of Dr. RML hospital for further treatment and checkup and he was advised to continue feeding the petitioner to RT, regular physiotherapy and medicines. He deposed that petitioner was still under medical treatment and would remain so under treatment throughout his life. The copy of discharge slip of Sushruta Trauma Centre is Mark A, discharge slip of Fortis hospital is Ex. PW4/1, other discharge slips, OPD cards and Xray reports are Ex. PW4/2 (colly), original medical bills filed by IO with DAR are Ex. PW4/3(colly), other bills are Ex. PW4/4 (colly), list of medical bills is Ex. PW4/5 (colly), 48 receipts of payment made to attendant Hira Lal are Ex. PW4/6 (colly), copy of matriculation certificate of petitioner is Ex. PW4/7 and copy of Sr. School certificate is Ex. PW4/8, copy of Icard issued by Delhi University is Ex. PW4/9, copy of voter ID card of PW4 is Ex. PW4/10 and the DAR has been proved as Ex. PW4/11.
In his cross examination, PW4 inter alia deposed that he was not an eye witness of the accident. He deposed that he was the registered owner of the motorcycle bearing no. DL8SAL3177. He deposed that his son was having a valid driving licence which had been misplaced at the time of accident and that he had not made any complaint to the police regarding loss of the driving licence of the petitioner as he remained busy in his treatment. He admitted that his son was wearing a helmet at the time of accident and volunteered that as they belong to Sikh community hence they were exempted from wearing helmet. He admitted that he had not paid any amount to Dr. RML hospital for the treatment of his son but deposed that all the medicines were purchased by him from outside the market and were paid by him. He denied the suggestion that the medical bills filed by him did not relate 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 12 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 13 of 30 to the injuries sustained in the present accident or that the medicines were not prescribed by the doctors. He deposed that doctor has not given in writing that his son/petitioner is brain dead. He denied the suggestions that he had not kept any attendant namley Sh. Hira Lal or that he had not paid any amount to him. He volunteered that receipts of the payment made to said Hira Lal were Ex. PW4/6 (colly) but admitted that the same did not bear his signatures. Petitioner has examined Ms. Laxmi Record Clerk, RML hospital, Delhi as PW5 who deposed that she had brought the summoned treatment record of patient Jagjot Singh who was admitted in the hospital on 11.11.2012 and discharged on 15.12.2012 and entire treatment record is Ex. PW5/1 (OSR) (colly). She deposed that patient Sh. Jagjot Singh was again admitted in the hospital on 05.07.2013 and discharged on 15.07.2013. She has proved the entire treatment record as Ex. PW5/2 (OSR) (colly).
She deposed that patient Sh. Jagjot Singh was again admitted in the hospital on 19.02.2014 and discharged on 01.03.2014. She has proved the entire treatment record as Ex. PW5/3 (OSR) (colly).
She deposed that patient Sh. Jagjot Singh was again admitted in the hospital on 01.06.2015 and discharged on 01.07.2015. She has proved the entire treatment record as Ex. PW5/4 (OSR) (colly).
She deposed that patient Sh. Jagjot Singh was again admitted in the hospital on 30.12.2013 and discharged on 19.02.2016. She has proved the entire treatment record as Ex. PW5/5 (OSR) (colly).
She deposed that patient Sh. Jagjot Singh was again admitted in the hospital on 04.08.2016 and discharged on 02.09.2016. She has proved the entire treatment record as Ex. PW5/6 (OSR) (colly).
PW5 was cross examined by R1 wherein she deposed that she had no personal knowledge of the case. She was also cross examined on behalf of insurance co/R2 wherein she inter alia deposed that the record brought by her today was not prepared by her. She deposed that original discharge summary was handed over the patient at the time of discharge.
Petitioner has also examined Sh. Kapil Anand as PW7 who 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 13 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 14 of 30 proved the document Ex. PW4/15 (receipts regarding payment of Rs. 10,000/ per month from 01.09.2017 to 01.10.2017 and from 01.10.2017 to 01.11.2017) bearing his signatures at point A & B. PW7 deposed that he was attending Sh. Jagjot Singh who was lying in coma from 01.09.2017 and he was getting Rs. 10,000/ per month in cash from his father Sh. Paramjeet Singh for attending his son from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm. He deposed that he was still attending the patient and had received Rs. 20,000/ in cash from him.
PW7 was cross examined only on behalf of insurance co/R2 wherein he inter alia deposed that there was no witness on Ex. PW4/15. He volunteered that it was not required as it bore his signature. He deposed that he had not done any professional course for any attendant. He denied the suggestion that he had filed false and fabricated documents to help the petitioner to get an enhanced compensation. He deposed that receipts Ex. PW4/15 were in the handwriting of father of the petitioner and were undated.
Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to following compensation: A Medicines and Treatment The petitioner has placed on record the treatment record of the patient/petitioner and also the medical bills which have inter alia been proved as Ex. PW4/3, Ex. PW4/4, Ex. PW4/13 (all colly) and same comes to Rs. 13,16,755//. Therefore, Rs. 13,16,755/ are granted to the petitioner under this head.
B. Future Treatment.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pritam Singh (Supra), wherein also the permanent disability was 100% and the patient was in persistent vegetative state, has held that having regard to the nature of injuries suffered, and their aftermath, the award of Rs. 5,00,000/ towards future treatment appeared to be just and proper and was granted accordingly.
In the present matter also the petitioner/injured has unfortunately suffered head injuries with 100% disability in view of altered sensorium as per his disability certificate Ex. PW3/1 of Dr. RML hospital. PW3 Dr. S. Bhaskar, Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Dr. RML hospital has deposed that 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 14 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 15 of 30 the petitioner was a case of head injury, he was in permanent vegetative state (coma) and that the disability was permanent and not likely to improve.
In view of the abovesaid judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner in this case and the aftermath of the injuries, Rs. 5,00,000/ are granted to the petitioner towards future treatment.
C. Loss of future earning capacity due to disability (Loss of income/earning power) In the present matter the petitioner/injured has unfortunately suffered head injuries with 100% disability in view of altered sensorium as per his disability certificate Ex. PW3/1 of Dr. RML hospital. PW3 Dr. S. Bhaskar, Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Dr. RML hospital has deposed that the petitioner was a case of head injury, he was in permanent vegetative state (coma) and that the disability was permanent and not likely to improve.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent order in case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO 842/2003, date of order 09.03.2018 has inter alia held as follows:
"6.4 The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, education and other factors. 6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps:
(i) 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 disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The claimant is totally disabled, earning any kind of livelihood, or
b) Whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 15 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 16 of 30 effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
c) Whether he was prevented all 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."
As the petitioner is in permanent vegetative state (coma) and has suffered 100% permanent disability which is not likely to improve, hence, he would not be in a position to do any activity or nature of work and is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood.
In view of above discussion, the injuries suffered by the petitioner, the functional disability of the petitioner in relation to his whole body and the effect of permanent disability on his actual earning capacity is taken as 100%.
PW4 in his affidavit Ex. PW4/A has deposed that his son i.e. the petitioner was working with M/s Raina Optics at Tilak Nagar, was getting Rs. 10,000/ per month as salary and was also doing B.Com from School of Open Learning, University of Delhi. The copy of Secondary School Examination and Sr. Secondary School Examination certificates of the petitioner are on record as Ex. PW4/7 & Ex. PW4/8 respectively which (Ex. PW4/7) mention his date of birth as 20.07.1993 which would show that petitioner was aged about 19 years at the time of accident and at least passed his 10+2 class.
Petitioner has not got examined any witness from M/s Raina Optics to prove that he was working there prior to accident or that he was getting salary of Rs. 10,000/ per month from there. PW4 during his cross examination inter alia deposed that he had not filed on record any monthly income proof of his son of Rs. 10,000/ per month. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has failed to prove his monthly income or that he was earning Rs. 10,000/ per month. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner can be 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 16 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 17 of 30 treated as a matriculate worker. It would be thus appropriate to assess the income of the petitioner on the basis of minimum wages of a matriculate worker as fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi under the Minimum Wages Act. The minimum wages of a matriculate worker at the relevant time on the date of accident was Rs. 8814/ p.m. Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just to consider the income of petitioner as Rs. 8814/ per month on the date of accident in question. Addition of Future Prospects.
In the case of Pritam Singh(Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court took the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs Madan Mohan & Anr., VII(2013) SLT 489=(2013)9SCC 65 as the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future prospect for those who are 'self employed' or engaged in gainful employment at a 'fixed salary' was clarified by a larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard, now reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 17 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 18 of 30(iv) In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied) Refence is also made to the case of Sanjay Oberoi vs Manoj Bageriya, MAC APPEAL 829/2011 decided on 03.11.2017 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Oberoi (Supra) after referring to the judgment of the constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 18 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 19 of 30 Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017 granted element of future prospects of increase in the income in a case where the income of the petitioner was notionally assessed on the basis of minimum wages with functional disability @ 10%.
In the case in hand, the petitioner was self employed and thus while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
The age of the petitioner, as discussed above, in the present case was about 19 years and he was self employed. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioner would be entitled to an addition of 40% of the established income as he was below 40 years at the time of his accident. The monthly income of petitioner is thus calculated as 8814/ +40% of 8814/ which comes to Rs. 8814/+ Rs. 3525/ (after rounding of)= Rs. 12,339/.
The age of petitioner at the time of accident was about 19 years and the relevant multiplier of "18" is to be adopted as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61(vi) in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Accordingly, the relevant multiplier would be "18" as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61 (vi) in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). The compensation is accordingly assessed towards loss of earning capacity at Rs. 26,65,224/ [(Rs. 12,339/per month x12 months x 18 (age multiplier) x 100/100(functional disability)]. D. Loss of Amenities of Life.
In the present matter the petitioner/injured has unfortunately suffered head injuries with 100% disability in view of altered sensorium 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 19 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 20 of 30 as per his disability certificate Ex. PW3/1 of Dr. RML hospital. PW3 Dr. S. Bhaskar, Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Dr. RML hospital has deposed that the petitioner was a case of head injury, he was in permanent vegetative state (coma) and that the disability was permanent and not likely to improve.
In view of the said discussion, the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pritam Singh(Supra) and above mentioned injuries suffered by him, a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ is granted under the said head.
E. Loss of Expectancy of life In the present matter the petitioner/injured has unfortunately suffered head injuries with 100% disability in view of altered sensorium as per his disability certificate Ex. PW3/1 of Dr. RML hospital. PW3 Dr. S. Bhaskar, Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Dr. RML hospital has deposed that the petitioner was a case of head injury, he was in permanent vegetative state (coma) and that the disability was permanent and not likely to improve.
On the same circumstances including 100% disability with persistent vegetative state, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pritam Singh (Supra) has granted Rs. 1,50,000/ towards loss of expectancy of life. In facts, Rs. 1,50,000/ are also granted to the petitioner under the said head. F. Pain and Suffering In the present matter the petitioner/injured has unfortunately suffered head injuries with 100% disability in view of altered sensorium as per his disability certificate Ex. PW3/1 of Dr. RML hospital. PW3 Dr. S. Bhaskar, Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Dr. RML hospital has deposed that the petitioner was a case of head injury, he was in permanent vegetative state (coma) and that the disability was permanent and not likely to improve.
On the same circumstances including 100% disability with persistent vegetative state, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pritam Singh (Supra) has granted Rs. 2,00,000/ towards Pain & Suffering. In facts, Rs. 2,00,000/ are also granted to the petitioner under the said head.
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 20 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 21 of 30G. Attendant Charges(during treatment) & future.
PW4 i.e. father of the petitioner has deposed that he had kept one attendant namely Sh. Hira Lal S/o Sh. Sunder Lal to attend to his son/petitioner in day time and had already paid him Rs. 3,44,000/ for attending to his son till 20.12.2016. He deposed that Mr. Hira Lal was still attending his son as he was 100% disabled and was still lying in coma. He deposed that he had paid Rs. 6800/ per month to Mr. Hira Lal for attending to his son from 20.12.2012 to 20.04.2014 and thereafter Rs. 7200/ per month from 20.04.2014 to 20.06.2016 and Rs. 8000/ per month from 20.06.2016 to 20.12.2016. He deposed that in future also he would have to keep one attendant regularly for attending his son. The said receipts qua alleged payment made to Hira Lal have been proved as Ex. PW4/6 and Ex. PW4/14 both collectively.
PW4 in his cross examination has inter alia deposed that the receipts Ex. PW4/6 do not bear his signatures. He denied the suggestions that the document Ex. PW4/6 (colly) were prepared on a single day or that they were false and fabricated document or that he had not kept any attendant namely Sh. Hira Lal or that he had not paid Rs. 3,44,000/ to Hira Lal or any other amount for attending his son.
The receipts Ex. PW4/6 and Ex. PW4/14 are the payment shown to have been made to one attendant Sh. Hira Lal for different time period for attending the petitioner. The petitioner has however, miserably failed to prove the above said receipts in the absence of examination of Sh. Hira Lal. The said receipts would further show that they were undated and only bear the signature of one Hira Lal, who as discussed above, has not been examined as a witness in this case. The petitioner has ,therefore, failed to prove that he kept any such attendant by the name of Hira Lal or that above mentioned amount by way of above said receipts were paid to him. The amount of said receipts cannot thus be awarded to the petitioner.
The petitioner has also examined Sh. Kapil Anand/PW7 who proved two receipts of Rs. 10,000/ each Ex. PW4/15 (colly) for the period of 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 21 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 22 of 30 1.09.2017 till 01.10.2017 and 01.10.2017 till 01.11.2017. He deposed that he was attending to Mr. Jagjot Singh (petitioner), who was lying in coma from 01.09.2017 and was getting Rs. 10,000/ per month in cash from his father for attending his son from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm and that he had already received Rs. 10,000/ from him. In cross examination, PW7 inter alia deposed that there was no witness on receipts Ex. PW4/15, the same were in the handwriting of the father of the petitioner and that they were undated.
PW7 Sh. Kapil Anand has stepped in the witness box and has proved the above said two receipts as Ex. PW4/15 (colly) through which he received total payment of Rs. 20,000/ in cash for attending to the petitioner.
In the case of Pritam Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that since the claimant had been rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 100%, there is no doubt that he would require consistent presence of attendant throughout his life. It was further held that in the said circumstances, the proper course would be to take care of attendant charges incurred during treatment and for future on the assumption that he would need to engage an attendant on regular basis. It was further held that expenditure towards this end could be computed on the basis of minimum wages of unskilled worker relevant to the date of accident. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said matter also adopted the multiplier in that regard.
The minimum wages of an unskilled worker on the date of accident i.e. 15.10.2012 was Rs. 7254/. In terms of the calculation adopted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pritam Singh (Supra), the compensation for attendant charges would come to Rs. 7254/x12x18= Rs. 15,66,864/ (rounded of to Rs. 15,67,000/).
In the said circumstances and the law as laid down in the case of Pritam Singh (Supra) of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the attendant charges (during treatment) and future are calculated at Rs. 15,67,000/ H. Special Diet and conveyance PW4 denied the suggestion that in his cross examination that he had not spent more than Rs. 70,000/ on conveyance or that he did not spend 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 22 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 23 of 30 more than Rs. 2,00,000/ on special diet.
The petitioner has not proved any such bill qua conveyance or special diet.
In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pritam Singh (Supra) has granted Rs. 1,00,000/ under this head, therefore, the petitioner is granted Rs. 1,00,000/ in lump sum under this head.
It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Pritam Singh (Supra) one other head of Transportation/boarding/lodging charges was granted by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as it was granted by the Tribunal in that matter, however, in the present matter before this Tribunal it was neither pressed nor any evidence was lead in that regard, hence, the same is not being granted to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs. 65,98,979/ which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Medicines & treatment Rs. 13,16,755/ 2 Future Treatment Rs. 5,00,000/
3. Loss of income/earning power Rs. 26,65,224/
4. Loss of Amenities Rs. 1,00,000/
5. Loss of Expectancy of life Rs. 1,50,000/
6. Pain & Suffering Rs. 2,00,000/
7. Attendant charges( During Rs. 15,67,000/ Treatment) & future
8. Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 1,00,000/ Total Rs. 65,98,979/ Rounded of to Rs. 66,00,000/ ( Rupees Sixty Six Lakhs only) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. w.e.f 16.01.2013 till realisation of the compensation amount. The said interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded on the award amount by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 23 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 24 of 30 Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) .
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.
10. Liability In the case in hand, the United India Insurance co/R2 has not been able to show anything on record that R1 who was the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle or that the permit of offending vehicle was not valid and as per settled law. Since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R2, hence R2 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
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., United India Insurance co/R2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 66,00,000/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R2 to the petitioner and his advocate and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R2 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 alongwith 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
11. Statement of father of petitioner in terms of clause 27 MCTAP was recorded. The record would show that after referring to Pritam Singh 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 24 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 25 of 30 (Supra), it was directed vide order sheet dated 20.04.2018 that the petitioner would open a bank account with endorsement in the name of injured himself which would be under the natural guardianship of his father Paramjeet Singh. On 04.05.2018, the Branch Manager of SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi submitted that in the absence of aadhar card and biometrics of the petitioner, it seemed not be possible to open his bank account as per the prevailing rules. On 02.07.2018, the service manager from the said bank submitted that as the victim was not having any aadhar card, hence, it would not be possible to open any bank account in his name. The ld counsel for petitioner on 02.07.2018 submitted that as the victim was in a state of continued coma and vegetative state, hence, it would not be possible to prepare his aadhar card and hence the compensation amount be got deposited in the account of the father of the victim being his natural guardian. In the said circumstances, the statement of the father of the victim was recorded under clause 27 of MCTAP.
I have heard the father of petitioner and ld. counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment 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: Further, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of medical bills on record, the continuous expenditure already being incurred and likely to be incurred on medical expenses, attendant charges etc. keeping in view that petitioner/victim is in continuous and persistent vegetative state (coma) due to the case accident, an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/ be released to petitioner in the saving bank a/c no. 37590605500 with SBI Bank, Ganesh Nagar Branch, Delhi i.e. the branch near his place of residence as mentioned in his statement recorded under clause 27 MCTAP with necessary endorsement regarding no cheque book and debit card in terms of orders of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO No. 842/2013 dated 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 25 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 26 of 30 15.12.2017 and 18.01.2018 and remaining amount be kept in 180 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 180 months respectively to be utilized for the claimant with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in terms of order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Sobat Singh vs Ramesh Chandra Gupta and case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, MAC.APP . 422/2009 and FAO 842/2003 :
(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 i.e. 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 maturity amount of the FDR(s) shall be credited to the saving bank account of the claimant(s) in a nationalised bank near the place of his 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.
(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 claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 26 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 27 of 30 endorsement before the court on the next date fixed for compliance.
12. Relief United India Insurance co/R2 is directed to deposit the award amount of 66,00,000/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. 16.01.2013 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R2/insurance to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the United India Insurance co/R2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
United India Insurance co/R2 is also directed to place on record the proof of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimant and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to R2 for compliance within the granted time. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
13. 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 father of petitioner was also recorded wherein he had stated that petitioner was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that he would submit form 15G to the insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 27 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 28 of 3014. Form IVB 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. The insurance co./R2 is also directed to obtain the copy of PAN card of the petitioner from the record.
Digitally signedAMIT by AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2018.09.05 13:22:31 +0530 Announced in open court (AMIT BANSAL) on 5th September 2018 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi. 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 28 of 30 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 29 of 30 FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident 15.10.2012
2. Name of injured Sh. Jagjot Singh
3. Age of the injured 19 years
4. Occupation of the injured: Self Employed
5. Income of the injured. 12,339/ per month
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured. Petitioner is in coma
8. Period of hospitalization: Petitioner is in coma.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details.
Yes. 100% permanent disability.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 13,16,755/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 50,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 50,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 15,67,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs. 26,65,224/
(vi) Loss of income/Future treatment Rs. 5,00,000/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any Rs. 1,50,000/ for loss of special treatment or aid to the injured for expectancy of life the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 29 of 30
17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 30 of 30
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience,
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 100% permanent disability nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in 100% relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X 26,65,224/ %Earning capacity X Multiplier) (8814+40% of 8814x12x18x100%)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 66,00,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs. 31,68,000/
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 97,68,000/
18. Award amount released Rs. 20,00,000/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 77,68,000/
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. 08.10.2018 (Clause 31) Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2018.09.05 13:22:51 +0530 (AMIT BANSAL) PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
05.09.2018 17413 Jagjot Singh vs Om Prakash Page 30 of 30