Delhi District Court
Om Narayan Shori vs . Moneesh Shalehe & Ors on 25 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI, PO : MACT01
(SOUTHWEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP no. 1809/16
Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors
CNR no. DLSW010042292016
1. Om Narayan Shori
S/o Sh. J.C. Shori
R/o RZ54, South Extn.1,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
Mobile No. 9818061573
PAN : AARPS3634F
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Moneesh Shalehe (Driver)
S/o Mohd. Nasheem
R/o Village Utter Dhaha,
P.O Katawan, P.S Kurwar,
Sultanpur, U.P
Mobile No. 8004719083
2. Sh. Rajesh Kumar (Owner)
S/o Sh. Bhim Singh,
R/o VPO Gumar,
Ganaur, Sonipat, Haryana
Mobile No. 9416259047
... Respondents
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors.
MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors
Page no. 1 of 39
MACP No. : 1810/16
Kuldeep Anand Vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors
CNR No.DLSW010042302016
FIR No. 133/16
U/s 279/338 IPC & 146/196, 66(i), 192(A) M.V. Act
PS BHD Nagar
1. Kuldeep Anand
S/o Bodhraj Anand
R/o RZ 39A, South Ext. Part 1,
Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi
Mobile no. 9213546165
PAN : AIKPA5139N
... Petitioners
Vs.
1. Moneesh Shalehe (Driver)
S/o Mohd. Nasheem
R/o Village Utter Dhaha,
PO Katawan, P.S. Kurwar,
Sultanpur, U.P
Mobile No. 8004719083
2. Sh. Rajesh Kumar (Owner)
S/o Sh. Bhim Singh,
R/o VPO Gumar,
Ganaur, Sonipat, Haryana
Mobile No. 9416259047
... Respondents
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors.
MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors
Page no. 2 of 39
Date of institution of MACP No. 1809/16 13.07.2016
Date of institution of MACP No. 1810/16 13.07.2016
Date on which, judgment have been reserved18.02.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment -25.03.2022
FORM V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
( In MACP No. 1809/16 -Om Narayan vs. Moneesh Shalehe)
1 Date of the accident 23.04.2016
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal
( Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company
(Clause 2)
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. PC Not clear from record
before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 13.07.2016
Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance Vehicle not insured
Company. (Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 13.07.2016
(Clause 11)
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed NA
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 the No
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors.
MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors
Page no. 3 of 39
any action / direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by NA
the Insurance company ( Clause 20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the NA
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company
( Clause 20 )
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance NA
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? ( Clause 22 )
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the NA
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 the NA
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any action / directions
warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of NA
the Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award 25.03.2022
19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of No.
the parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open
savings bank accounts (s) near their place of Yes
residence ? ( Clause 18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 25.04.2018
to open savings bank accounts(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar
Card and the direction tot he bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the claimants (s) and
make an endorsement to this effect on the
passbook(s) (Clause 18 )
22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 20.11.2019
passbook of their savings bank account near the
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors.
MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors
Page no. 4 of 39
place of their residence alongwith the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
(Clause 18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) RZ54, South Extn.1,
(Clause 27 ) Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the SB A/C no.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC 7989000100074597 at
Code( Clause 27) PNB, Ram Nagar, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi (IFSC
Code: PUNB0798900)
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings 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 to ascertain his/their
financial condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, Account No. 37665510911
name and branch of the bank of the Claims at SBI, District Court
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be Complex, Sector10,
deposited/transferred. Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC
Code SBIN0011566 and
MICR Code 110002483)
FORM V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
( In MACP No. 1810/16 - Kuldeep Anand Vs. Moneesh)
1 Date of the accident 23.04.2016
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal
( Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company
(Clause 2)
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. PC Not clear from record
before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors.
MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors
Page no. 5 of 39
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 13.07.2016
Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance Vehicle not insured
Company. (Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 13.07.2016
(Clause 11)
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed NA
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 the No
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action / direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by NA
the Insurance company ( Clause 20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the NA
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company
( Clause 20 )
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance NA
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? ( Clause 22 )
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the NA
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 the NA
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any action / directions
warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of NA
the Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award 25.03.2022
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors.
MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors
Page no. 6 of 39
19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of No.
the parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open
savings bank accounts (s) near their place of Yes
residence ? ( Clause 18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 25.04.2018
to open savings bank accounts(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar
Card and the direction tot he bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the claimants (s) and
make an endorsement to this effect on the
passbook(s) (Clause 18 )
22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 20.11.2019
passbook of their savings bank account near the
place of their residence alongwith the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
(Clause 18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) RZ39A, South Ext. Part 1,
(Clause 27 ) Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the SB A/C no.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC 0148000107561377 at
Code( Clause 27) PNB, Ram Nagar, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi (IFSC
Code: PUNB0798900)
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings 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 to ascertain his/their
financial condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, Account No. 37665510911
name and branch of the bank of the Claims at SBI, District Court
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be Complex, Sector10,
deposited/transferred. Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC
Code SBIN0011566 and
MICR Code 110002483)
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors.
MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors
Page no. 7 of 39
JUDGMENT:
1a. Vide this common judgment, the Tribunal shall dispose of two cases bearing MACP No. 1809/16 & MACP No. 1810/16 pertaining to the same road traffic accident which took place on 23.04.2016. b. The first case/DAR bearing (MACP No. 1809/16) as per the provisions of M.V. Act has been filed in respect of injuries sustained by the petitioner / injured Om Narayan Shori caused in the road traffic accident on 23.04.2016. c. The connected case/DAR bearing (MACP No. 1810/16) has been filed qua the injuries sustained by petitioner/injured Kuldeep Narayan in the same road traffic accident.
2. CLAIM a. Brief facts as made out from the DAR are that on 23.04.2016 at about 4:30 pm, the petitioners were going to home from Bahadurgarh to Uttam Nagar on scooty bearing No. DL 4SBE 6051 of petitioner Kuldeep Anand. When they reached near Ganda Nala Jahroda Kalan, New Delhi, then a vehicle (Truck Tata Hiva) bearing no HR42D0436 came at a very high speed driven by its driver most rashly and negligently without following any traffic rules and regulations and hit the said scooty on which they were going. As a result of which, petitioners received grievous injuries.
b. It is further stated that after the accident, injured Om Narayan Shori and Kuldeep Anand were taken to Vikas Hospital, Najafgarh, New Delhi where petitioner/injured Om Narayan Shori remained admitted from 23.04.2016 to 25.04.2016.
c. Whereas petitioner / injured Kuldeep Anand was shifted to Indian Spinal Injuries Center, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi where he remained admitted from 24.04.2016 to 26.04.2016.
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 8 of 39 d. It is also stated that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident without observing the traffic rules and regulations. Accordingly, the present case was registered vide FIR No. 133/16 u/s 279/338 IPC & 146/196, 66(i), 192(A) M.V. Act at PS Baba Haridas Nagar, New Delhi and the investigation was conducted by the IO. e. On conclusion of the investigation, the DAR (bearing MACP No. 1809/16) has been filed by the IO in respect of the injuries sustained by petitioner/ injured Om Narayan Shori in the present accident. Another DAR (bearing MACP No. 1810/16) has been filed by the IO in respect of the injuries sustained by petitioner / injured Kuldeep Anand in the same accident and both the cases were consolidated on 12.07.2017 by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
3. REPLY a. In their reply, R1 Moneesh Shalehe (driver) and R2 Rajesh Kumar (owner of offending vehicle) have stated that the present DAR has been filed by the police on false and frivolous grounds by concocting a false story of accident and it was liable to be dismissed.
b. It is further stated that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle HR 42D0436 has not committed any rash and negligent driving against the injured and he never violated any traffic rules and regulations. Whereas the driver of the scooty bearing no. DL4SBE6051 is solely responsible for the accident as he was driving his scooty in a very rash and negligent manner and suddenly came from the wrong side and hit the alleged offending vehicle and caused the accident. Whereas, the driver of the offending vehicle was driving his vehicle in a very careful manner and according to the traffic norms. He tried his level best to avoid the said accident but could not get enough time for the same. c. Further, it is stated that the driver was holding valid driving licence and it has been prayed that the present DAR may be dismissed. Thus, R1 and R2 are MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 9 of 39 having no liability towards the injured and further has nothing to do with the present case.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 12.07.2017 by Ld. Predecessor of this Court :
ISSUES :
1. Whether Om Narayan and Kuldeep Anand sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 23.04.2016 due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (Truck) no. HR42D0436 (in the original issues, vehicle number is mentioned as HR42B0436.
The same is a clerical error and stands rectified accordingly) being driven by Moneesh Shalehe and owned by Rajesh Kumar? ...OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
3. Relief.
5. PETITIONER EVIDENCE In support of their case, petitioners have examined petitioner / injured Om Narayan Shori as PW1 and injured Kuldeep Anand as PW2 and thereafter, PE was closed on behalf of the petitioners on 16.01.2019.
6. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE a. In RE, respondent no.1 - Moneesh Shalehe (driver) has examined himself as R1W1 wherein he averred that scooty bearing no. DL4SBE6051 was being driven in very rash and negligent manner by Mr. Kuldeep Anand with Mr. Om Narayan sitting as pillion rider and hit the offending vehicle from the right side while the truck was standing stationary / parked at Ganda Nala on Main Road near Jharoda Village and thereafter, they fell down and received injuries. Thereafter, RW1 MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 10 of 39 immediately managed a passerby car and took the injured to Vikas Hospital, Najafgarh where both the injured were medically treated. b. In the instant case, Ld counsel for R1 has also placed on record the certified copy of judgment dated 06.11.2019 passed by the concerned Ld. MM in the case titled as State vs. Moneesh Shalehe (FIR No. 133/16 u/s 279/338 IPC PS: BHD Nagar) as Ex.RW2/A (colly) whereby R1/ driver was acquitted for the offences charged against him. Thereafter, RE was closed on behalf of R1 & R2 vide order 20.11.2019 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. c. R1W1 has further relied upon driving licence as Ex.RW1/A, Copy of notice issued by IO to petitioner Kuldeep Anand for driving the scooty unauthorizedly and without a valid driving licence as Ex.RW1/B and a copy of the Mechanical Inspection as Ex. RW1/C in support of his contention.
7. Arguments have been heard. Material on record perused. Submissions considered.
8. The issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE No. 1Whether Om Narayan and Kuldeep Anand sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 23.04.2016 due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (Truck) no. HR42D0436 being driven by Moneesh Shalene and owned by Rajesh Kumar? ... OPP a. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioners have examined PW1 Sh. Om Narayan Shori who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and he further relied upon documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/4 (colly). Whereas PW2 Sh.
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 11 of 39 Kuldeep Anand has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A). PW 2 also relied upon the documents Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/3. PW1 and PW2 have put forth the version of facts given above in their affidavits. b. The important fact is that both these witnesses i.e PW1 Om Narayan Shori and PW2 Kuldeep Anand were crossexamined on behalf respondent no. 1 & 2, but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of this witness.
c. In their cross examination by the Ld. counsel for R1 and R2, PW1 and PW2 denied the suggestion that accident took place due to their own fault. PW1 and PW2 also denied the suggestion that truck / dumper was in stationary condition or they were deposing falsely. PW Kuldeep Anand admitted that he was not having driving licence at the time of the accident.
d. The main contention of the respondent no. 1 is that he has secured an acquittal in the connected criminal case and that he was not negligent in driving the alleged offending truck. In this regard, he even stepped into the witness box and deposed that his vehicle was parked near the Ganda Naala on the main road near Jhaoroda Village and the scooty of the petitioners, being driven in rash and negligent manner, hit his vehicle. However, in his crossexamination, he admitted that he did not make any complaint regarding the accident. Even otherwise, in the WS filed on his behalf, he has clearly stated that he was driving the vehicle in a very careful manner and tried his level best to avoid the accident but could not get enough time for the same. These two versions are contradictory. If the vehicle was stationary then there is no question of the respondent no. 1 trying to avoid the accident but not being able to do so for want of time. Likewise, if the respondent no. 1 was driving in careful manner and tried to avoid the accident then there is no question of his vehicle being stationary. Moreover, on perusal of the judgment of the Criminal Court dated 06.11.2019, Ex. RW2/A, it is apparent that the Ld. MM concerned has merely given the benefit of doubt to respondent no.1 in view of the existence of two reasonably MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors.
MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 12 of 39 probable and evenly balanced view of the evidence being possible. Ld. MM has held that there was considerable doubt if the scooty had hit the moving vehicle or a stationary vehicle. It has already been observed that this stand of the vehicle being stationary is contrary to what has been averred in the reply of respondent no. 1. e. In this regard, it has been held in the case of Harbans Lal & Ors vs Harvinder Pal Singh & Ors1 that the rule of strict liability is applicable in motor accident claim cases. It has been held in the said case that:
"15. No doubt, findings of fact, unless found to be perverse, should not be upset by an appellate Court; however, in cases of compensation claims by the next kin of deceased or by victims who are severely injured in motor vehicle accidents, Courts, including the hon'ble Supreme Court, have generally adopted a view that latitude should be given to claimants and primafacie evidence pointing towards negligence of persons driving an "offending vehicle" should be generally accepted, in order to ensure that the next kin of those deceased, or victims who are severely injured, are not made to suffer when there is no negligence on their own part."
(emphasis supplied) In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana had, in turn, referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. vs M. Karumai Ammal2 wherein, while referring to the decision of the High Court under challenge, it was observed that:
"The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected and rightly. The requirement of culpable rashness under section 304A I.P.C. is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability."
(emphasis supplied) 1 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 9926 2 (1980) 3 SCC 457.
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 13 of 39 f. Thus, on the anvil of preponderance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds that the petitioners have established their case against the respondents in respect of the accident for the simple reason that while the petitioners have adhered to their version regarding the accident, the respondent no.1 has taken two mutually contradictory stands which do not inspire any confidence. g. Contributory negligence: Contributory negligence has been alleged on part of the injured as he was not stated to be possessing a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. However, the driving skills of the injured are hardly of any consequence or relevance when the manner in which the accident took place is considered. To think of it, even the most skilled driver would be helpless in a situation where his vehicle is rammed into by another vehicle while coming from wrong side. Contributory negligence cannot be assumed and rather, must be proved by the one who alleges it. It has been held in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Swaran Singh & Ors3 that :
" Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident."
Thus, mere non existence of the driving licence of even the driver of the offending vehicle is not a ground for avoiding liability, let alone non existence of driving licence of the driver of the victim's vehicle for claiming contributory negligence. Hence, no deduction is liable to be made on this ground. h. Hence, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that petitioners / injured Om Narayan Shori and Kuldeep Anand sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 23.04.2016 due to rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle 3 2004 ACJ 1(SC) MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 14 of 39 (Truck) bearing no. HR42D0436, which was being driven by R1 Moneesh Shalehe and owned by R2 Rajesh Kumar at the time of accident. In these circumstances, nothing material has come on record which could shake the credibility of these witnesses qua their deposition regarding the manner in which the accident was caused in this case.
i. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
9. ISSUE No. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? ...OPP a. The onus to prove the abovesaid issue no. 2 in MACP No. 1809/16 was upon the petitioner/injured Om Narayan Shori and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioner/injured Om Narayan Shori has examined himself as PW1 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), wherein it has been stated that on 23.04.2016, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of R1/driver of offending vehicle bearing HR42D0436. PW1 has also relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/4.
b. Whereas petitioner Kuldeep Anand has examined himself as PW2 and submitted that he received fracture and other multiple injuries all over the body and after the accident, he remained admitted in Vikas Hospital from 24.04.2016 to 26.04.2016 and treated upon there. Thereafter, he got treatment in Ortho Care Hospital and various other doctors.
c. In their affidavits, both the petitioners have deposed as it is that they have spent ₹1,00,000/ on his treatment, ₹30,000/ on conveyance and ₹30,000/ on special diet, ₹10,000/ per month on attendant for about 6 months and spent Rs. 10,000/ per month for about 6 months on physiotherapy. They further stated that they required ₹1,00,000/ for further treatment and operations and likely to spend MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 15 of 39 much more on these heads in future. Further, due to the accidental injuries they were unable to earn money for about six month.
d. PW1, upon examination regarding his needs and liabilities, stated that as of now, he was not working anywhere and he does not have any source of income and at the time of accident, he was working with a contractor and was earning about ₹3040,000/ per month. Whereas in his evidence, PW1 stated that at the time of accident he was doing private service and was earning ₹25,000/ per month. e. Hence in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence on record, it is clear that petitioner/ injured Om Narayan Shori and Kuldeep Anand sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident dated 23.04.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. HR42D0436, which was being driven by R1 Moneesh Shalehe and owned by R2 Rajesh Kumar at the time of accident and as such, the petitioners/ injured - Om Narayan Shori and Kuldeep Anand have become entitled to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the abovesaid accident.
COMPENSATION IN MACP NO. 1809/16 QUA INJURED / PETITIONER Om Narayan Shori.
Quantum of compensation payable to petitioner/ injured - Om Narayan Shori is ascertained under the following heads:
10. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES a. As per the MLC bearing no. 308 of Vikas Hospital pertaining to petitioner/ injured Om Narayan Shori has sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in this case and has suffered multiple rib fracture and intense respiratory distress under evaluation.
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 16 of 39 b. Nature of injuries:
As per the medical treatment record pertaining to Vikas Hospital, Najafgarh New Delhi petitioner/injured Om Narayan Shori is a case of Pneumothorax left side with #5,6,7 RIBS of left side with bilateral contusions.
c. Period of hospitalization:
As per Discharge summary of the petitioner issued by Vikas Hospital, he was admitted in hospital for the following period(s):
from 23.04.2016 to 25.04.2016.
The total period being about 3 days.
d. Disability, if any:
The perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/injured has not filed on record any document to show that he has suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident in this case.
11. MEDICINES & TREATMENT a. In the present case, as per record, the petitioner/injured Om Narayan Shori has undergone treatment at Vikas Hospital, Najafgarh, Delhi. He remained admitted at Vikas hospital from 23.04.2016 to 25.04.2016.
b. Further, in regard to the treatment undergone by him, petitioner/injured has placed on record the receipts amounting to ₹1,09,165/. (2265+1870+979+456+359+1500+4400+9700+300+1000+1136+1000+300+300+ 300+5000+ 9400 +68900) pertaining the treatment taken by petitioner Om Narayan Shori at Vikas Hospital qua the injuries sustained by him in the accident. However, no suggestions have been given to the injured that the said bills do not pertain to the injuries sustained in the accident.
c. There is no reason to doubt the said bills/receipt. In these circumstances, and in view of the material on record, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 17 of 39 ₹1,09,165/ and accordingly, the petitioner / injured Om Narayan is awarded the said amount i.e. ₹1,09,165/ towards 'medicines and medical treatment'.
12. CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET a. In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner/ injured Om Narayan Shori is a case of grievous injury i.e. Pneumothorax left side with #5,6,7 RIBS of left side with bilateral contusions. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have visited the hospital/doctors for his treatment and would also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident.
b. It is being submitted on behalf of the petitioner/injured that he has spent ₹30,000/ each on conveyance and special diet. However, no evidence, documentary or otherwise, in this regard has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner. Further, it is pertinent to note that from the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/injured has not suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident in this case.
c. The accident occurred on 23.04.2016 and it is clear from the record that he remained under treatment qua the injuries sustained in the accident till about one month. He would have required further period of one month atleast to completely recover and would not have used public transport during this period. Assuming that the accused used car or cabs for conveyance for about 2 months after the accident and further assuming that he used conveyance about 10 times a month and each time he incurred an average expenditure of ₹500/, then his conveyance expenses would come to ₹10,000/ (@ ₹5000/ per month). d. Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material on record, petitioner/injured is entitled to a sum of ₹10,000/ (@ ₹5,000/per month for 2 months) towards expenses for 'conveyance'. Further, in view of the injuries suffered by him, the petitioner/ injured must have needed special diet for a period of 2 MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 18 of 39 months to have a fast and proper recovery. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is also awarded ₹10,000/ (@ ₹5,000/per month for 2 months) towards expenses for 'special diet'.
13. LOSS OF INCOME a. In the present case, as per Aadhar card of petitioner / injured, he is permanent resident of Delhi. In the present case, the petitioner/injured stated that at the time of the accident, he was having private service and was earning about ₹25,000/ p.m., however, no documentary evidence in this regard has been placed on record and in the absence thereof, the minimum wages for during the relevant period (23.04.2016) i.e. ₹9,568/ p.m is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of income to the petitioner/ injured in this case (for unskilled worker, since no evidence of qualifications has been brought on record). b. In the instant case, petitioner/injured is an operated case of Pneumothorax left side with # 5,6,7 RIBS of left side with bilateral contusions and has remained hospitalized for about 3 days. Further, in view of the material on record, it appears that it might have taken about two months for the petitioner/ injured to recover from the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner / injured shall be entitled to a sum of ₹9,568/x 2= ₹ 19,136/ under the head 'Loss of Income'.
14. ATTENDANT CHARGES a. In the present case, the petitioner/injured has deposed that he has spent a sum of ₹10,000/ per month on attendant for about 6 months, however, neither the said attendant has been examined nor any documentary proof regarding the payment being made to the abovesaid attendant have been brought on record by the petitioner/ injured in this case.
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 19 of 39 b. In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner / injured Om Narayan Shori is a case of Pneumothorax left side with #5,6,7 RIBS of left side with bilateral contusions. Further, he has placed on record documents regarding his hospitalization from 23.04.2016 to 25.04.2016. In these circumstances, the petitioner/ injured must have required the services of attendant for about 2 months. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner/injured would have also needed an attendant to look after him, even if the gratuitous services were rendered by the some or the other of this family members. In the case titled as Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. vs Lalita4 it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some of the family members.
c Further, assuming that the petitioner must have spent atleast ₹5,000/ per month if he had an attendant. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to an amount of ₹ 5,000 X 2 = ₹10,000/ towards 'Attendant Charges'.
15. PAIN & SUFFERINGS a. As per the settled law, for assessing the pain & sufferings, the following factors have to be taken into account :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment.
b. In the instant case, in view of the material/evidence on record, there is no element of doubt that the petitioner/injured has suffered fracture of his ribs. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as Rekha Jain Vs. 4 AIR 1981 Delhi 558 MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 20 of 39 National Insurance Co. Ltd.5, the petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain & suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner/injured cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money. However, in view of the facts & circumstances of the present case and in view of the material on record, a sum of ₹50,000/ is awarded to the petitioner towards the head 'pain & sufferings'.
16. LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES The petitioner/injured has claimed that he has suffered loss of enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. However, he has not suffered any permanent disability. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down vide judgment of Rekha Jain vs National Insurance Co. Ltd 6, the petitioner/injured shall not be entitled to any compensation under this head. However, the petitioner/ injured shall be entitled to a sum of ₹20,000/ as 'compensation for mental and physical shock' suffered by him due to the accident in this case.
17. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded to the petitioner/ injured Om Narayan Shori is tabulated as below: S.No HEADS AMOUNT (in Rupees) 1 Medicines &Treatment ₹1,109,165/
2. Conveyance ₹ 10,000/
3. Special Diet ₹ 10,000/
4. Loss of Income ₹ 19,136/
5. Attendant Charges ₹ 10,000/
6. Pain &sufferings ₹ 50,000/
7. Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities. Nil
8. Compensation for mental and physical shock ₹ 20,000/ Total ₹2,28,301/ rounded of as 5 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 564951 of 2012 6 Ibid MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 21 of 39 ₹ 2,30,000/
18. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case, in view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.7 Hence, the petitioner/injured is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e. ₹2,30,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 13.07.2016 till realization.
19. RELIEF IN MACP No. 1809/16 (Om Narayan Shori Vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. ) Thus, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of ₹2,30,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 13.07.2016 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioner/injured Om Narayan Shori and against the respondents.
20. FORMIVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 23.04.2016
ii). Name of the injured : Om Narayan Shori 7 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601.
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 22 of 39
iii). Age of the injured : 46 years (As per Aadhar Card)
iv). Occupation of the injured : At the time of accident petitioner / injured was doing private job.
v). Income of the injured : ₹9,568/ (minimum wages)
vi). Nature of injury : Grievous (as per MLC)
vii). Medical treatment taken : Vikas Hospital, Najafgarh,
New Delhi
viii). Period of hospitalization : 23.04.2016 to 25.04.2016
ix). Whether any permanent : No
disability?If yes, give details
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment ₹1,09,165/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹10,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹10,000/
(iv) Cost of attendant ₹10,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income ₹19,136/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any
special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and ₹20,000/
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering ₹50,000/
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 23 of 39
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(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 Nil 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 relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. Total Compensation ₹2,28,301/ rounded of as ₹ 2,30,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of @ 9% per annum from the award date of filing of petition i.e. 13.07.2016 till realization.
17. Total amount including interest ₹2,30,000/ + interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 13.07.2016 till realization.
18. Award amount released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 24 of 39
20. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB amount to the claimant(s) (Clause29) Account of the petitioner/injured.
21 Next Date for compliance of the 25.06.2022 award. (Clause 31)
21. Hence, in view of the above, petitioner / injured Om Narayan Shori shall be entitled to entire compensation amount i.e. ₹2,30,000/ in the present case.
Further, the statement of petitioner Om Narayan Shori regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner/injured and having regard to fact and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S.No. Name Status Amount of Release Amount /Period of FDR Award Amount
1. Sh. Om Petitioner ₹2,30,000/ ₹38,000/ ₹1,92,000/ be kept in 12 Narayan / injured FDRs of ₹16,000/each for Shori the period from one month to 12 months in the name of petitioner with cumulative interest.
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 25 of 39 COMPENSATION IN MACP NO. 1810/16 QUA INJURED / PETITIONER Kuldeep Anand.
Quantum of compensation payable to petitioner/ injured - Kuldeep Anand is ascertained under the following heads:
a. The onus to prove the abovesaid issue no. 2 in MACP No. 1810/16 was upon the petitioner/injured Kuldeep Anand and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioner/ injured Kuldeep Anand has examined himself as PW2 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A), wherein it has been stated that on 23.04.2016, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of R1/driver of offending vehicle bearing HR42D0436. PW2 has also relied upon the documents Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/3.
b. In his affidavit, PW2 deposed that he has spent ₹1,00,000/ on his treatment, ₹30,000/ on conveyance and ₹30,000/ on special diet, ₹10,000/ per month on attendant for about 6 months and spent ₹10,000/ per month for about 6 months on physiotherapy. He further stated that he required ₹1,00,000/ for further treatment and operations and likely to spend much more on these heads in future. Further, due to the accidental injuries PW2 was unable to earn money for about six months.
c. PW2, upon examination regarding his needs and liabilities, stated that as of now, he is working as an Accountant and earning ₹20,000/ per month. Whereas in his evidence, PW2 stated that at the time of accident he was doing private service and was earning ₹25,000/ per month.
d. Whereas, in the written submissions, PW2 stated that he has spent ₹1,00,000/ on treatment, ₹30,000/ each on conveyance and on special diet as well as ₹30,000/ on attendant charges.
e. Hence in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence on record, it is clear that petitioner/ injured Kuldeep Anand sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident dated 23.04.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of offending MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 26 of 39 vehicle no. HR42D0436, which was being driven by R1 Moneesh Shalehe and owned by R2 Rajesh Kumar at the time of accident and as such, the petitioner/ injured - Kuldeep Anand has become entitled to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the abovesaid accident.
22. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES a. As per the MLC no. 309 of Vikas Hospital pertaining to petitioner/ injured Kuldeep Anand has sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in this case.
b. Nature of injuries: As per the medical treatment record pertaining to Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi petitioner/injured Kuldeep Anand is a case of Galeazzi fracture dislocation left forearm. c. Period of hospitalization: As per Discharge summary of the petitioner issued by Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, he was admitted in hospital for the following period(s):
from 24.04.2016 to 26.04.2016.
The total period being about 3 days.
d. Disability, if any: The perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/injured has not filed on record any document to show that he has suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
23. MEDICINES & TREATMENT a. In the present case, as per record, the petitioner/injured Kuldeep Anand was first removed to Vikas Hospital, Najafgarh where he got initial treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. He remained admitted at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi from 24.04.2016 to 26.04.2016. Further, he has undergone implant fixation for correcting the fracture.
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 27 of 39 b. In regard to the treatment undergone by him, petitioner/injured has placed on record the receipts amounting to ₹66153.84/ (185+60,706+950+363+950+480+26.20+198.74+80+130.95+1654.95+429) c. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/ injured shall be entitled to a sum of ₹66153.84/ and accordingly, the petitioner/ injured Kuldeep Anand is awarded the said amount i.e. ₹66153.84/ towards 'medicines and medical treatment'.
24. CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET a. In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner/ injured Kuldeep Anand is a case of grievous injuries i.e. Galeazzi fracture dislocation left forearm. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have visited the hospital/doctors for his treatment and would also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident. b. It is being submitted on behalf of the petitioner/injured that he has spent ₹30,000/ each on conveyance as well as special diet. However, no evidence, documentary or otherwise, in this regard has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner. Further, it is pertinent to note that from the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/injured has not suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident in this case.
c. The accident occurred on 23.04.2016 and it is clear from the record that he remained under treatment qua the injuries sustained in the accident till about two months and would not have used public transport during this period. Assuming that the injured used car or cabs for conveyance for about 2 months after the accident and further assuming that he used conveyance about 10 times a month and each time he incurred an average expenditure of ₹500/, then his conveyance expenses would come to ₹10,000/ (@ ₹ 5000/ per month X 2). Hence, in view of the above MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 28 of 39 and in view of the material on record, petitioner/injured is entitled to a sum of ₹10,000/ (@ ₹5,000/per month for 2 months) towards expenses for 'conveyance'.
d. Further, in view of the injuries suffered by him, the petitioner/ injured must have needed special diet for a period of 2 months to have a fast and proper recovery. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is also awarded ₹10,000/ (@ ₹5,000/per month for 2 months) towards expenses for 'special diet'.
25. LOSS OF INCOME a. In the present case, as per Aadhar card of petitioner / injured, he is permanent resident of Delhi. In the present case, the petitioner/injured stated that at the time of the accident, he was having private service and was earning about ₹25,000/ p.m., however, no documentary evidence in this regard has been placed on record and in the absence thereof, the minimum wages for during the relevant period (23.04.2016) i.e. ₹9,568/ p.m. is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of income to the petitioner/ injured in this case (for unskilled worker, since no evidence of qualifications has been brought on record). b. In the instant case, petitioner/injured is an operated case of Galeazzi fracture dislocation left forearm and has remained hospitalized for about 3 days. Further, in view of the material on record, it appears that it might have taken about two months for the petitioner/ injured to recover from the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner / injured shall be entitled to a sum of ₹9,568 x 2= ₹19,136/ under the head 'Loss of Income'.
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 29 of 39
26. ATTENDANT CHARGES a. In the present case, the petitioner/injured has deposed that he has spent a sum of ₹10,000/ per month on attendant for about 6 months, however, neither the said attendant has been examined nor any documentary proof regarding the payment being made to the abovesaid attendant have been brought on record by the petitioner/ injured in this case.
b. In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner / injured - Kuldeep Anand is a case of Galeazzi fracture dislocation left forearm. Further, he has placed on record document regarding his hospitalization from 24.04.2016 to 26.04.2016. In these circumstances, the petitioner/ injured must have required the services of attendant for about 2 months. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner/injured would have also needed an attendant to look after him, even if the gratuitous services were rendered by the some or the other of this family members. In the case titled as Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. vs Lalita8, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some of the family members. c. Further, the petitioner must have spent atleast ₹5,000/ per month if he had an attendant. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to an amount of ₹5,000 X 2 = ₹10,000 towards 'Attendant Charges'.
27. PAIN & SUFFERINGS a. As per the settled law, for assessing the pain & sufferings, the following factors have to be taken into account:
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred 8 Supra, Note 4 MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 30 of 39
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment.
b. In the instant case, in view of the material/evidence on record, there is no element of doubt that the petitioner/injured has suffered Galeazzi fracture dislocation left forearm. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as Rekha Jain vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.9, the petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain & suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner/injured cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money. However, in view of the facts & circumstances of the present case and in view of the material on record, a sum of ₹50,000/ is awarded to the petitioner towards the head 'pain & sufferings'.
28. LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES The petitioner/injured has claimed that he has suffered loss of enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. The petitioner/injured was about 58 years of age at the time of accident and has suffered Galeazzi fracture dislocation left forearm. Due to which he has been operated and implants fixation has been done. However, he has not suffered from any permanent disability. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down vide judgment of Rekha Jain vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.10, the petitioner/injured shall not be entitled to any compensation under this head. However, the petitioner/ injured shall be entitled to a sum of ₹20,000/ as 'compensation for mental and physical shock' suffered by him due to the accident in this case.
29. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded to the petitioner/ injured - Kuldeep Anand is tabulated as below: 9 Supra, Note 5 10 Ibid.
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 31 of 39 S.No HEADS AMOUNT (in Rupees) 1 Medicines &Treatment ₹ 66,153.84/
2. Conveyance ₹ 10,000/
3. Special Diet ₹ 10,000/
4. Loss of Income ₹ 19,136/
5. Attendant Charges ₹ 10,000/
6. Pain &sufferings ₹ 50,000/
7. Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities. Nil
8. Compensation for mental and physical shock ₹ 20,000/ Total ₹1,85,289.84 rounded of as ₹1,86,000/
30. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case, in view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.11 Hence, the petitioner/injured is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e. ₹1,86,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 13.07.2016 till realization.
31. RELIEF IN MACP No. 1810/16 (Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalene. ) Thus, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of ₹1,86,000/ (Rupees One Lac Eighty Six Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 13.07.2016 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioner/injured-Kuldeep Anand and against the respondents.
11 Supra, Note 7.
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 32 of 39
32. FORMIVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 23.04.2016
ii). Name of the injured : Kuldeep Anand
iii). Age of the injured : 58 years (at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the injured : At the time of accident petitioner / injured was doing private job.
v). Income of the injured : ₹9,568/ (minimum wages)
vi). Nature of injury : Grievous
vii). Medical treatment taken : Indian Spinal Injuries Center,
by the injured Vasant Kunj, New Delhi
viii). Period of hospitalization : 24.04.2016 to 26.04.2016
i.e. 3 days
ix). Whether any permanent : No
disability?If yes, give details
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment ₹ 66,153.84/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹ 10,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹ 10,000/
(iv) Cost of attendant/physiotherapist ₹ 10,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income ₹ 19,136/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any
special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 33 of 39
12. Non Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and ₹ 20,000/
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering ₹ 50,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) 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 NA nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of As above expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. Total Compensation ₹1,85,289.84 rounded of as ₹1,86,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of @ 9% per annum from the award date of filing of petition i.e 13.07.2016 till realization.
17. Total amount including interest ₹1,86,000/ + interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 13.07.2016 till realization.
18. Award amount released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
20. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB amount to the claimant(s) (Clause29) Account of the petitioner/injured.
21 Next Date for compliance of the 25.06.2022 MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 34 of 39 award. (Clause 31)
33. Hence, in view of the above, petitioner Kuldeep Anand shall be entitled to entire compensation amount i.e. ₹1,86,000/ in the present case. Further, the statement of petitionerSh. Kuldeep Anand regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner/injured and having regard to fact and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S.No. Name Status Amount of Release Amount /Period of Award Amount FDR
1. Kuldeep Petitioner ₹1,86,000/ ₹30,000/ ₹1,56,000/ be kept in Anand / injured 12 FDRs of ₹13,000/ each for the period from one month to 12 months in the name of petitioner with cumulative interest.
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
34. LIABILITY (In both the cases bearing MACP No. 1809/16 & MACP No. 1810/16) The offending vehicle bearing no. HR42D0436 was uninsured at the time of the accident and was being driven by respondent No.1 Moneesh Shalehe (driver) and R2 Rajesh Kumar (owner) at the time of accident and as such, both the MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 35 of 39 respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount in both these cases bearing MACP No. 1809/16 & MACP No.1810/16).
Hence, in view of the above, Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
35. In both these cases bearing MACP No. 1809/16 & MACP No. 1810/16, the award amounts shall be deposited /transferred by both the respondents in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this court .
36. In MACP No. 1809/16, petitioner no. 1 Om Narayan Shori has stated that he is having a SB Account No. 7989000100074597 at PNB, Ram Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi (IFSC Code: PUNB0798900), PAN:
AARPS3634F and it is being requested that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account.
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid saving banks account of the said petitioner and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager of the bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the said petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 36 of 39 At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
37. In MACP No. 1810/16, petitioner no. 2 Kuldeep Anand has stated that he is having a SB Account No. 0148000107561377 at PNB, Ram Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi (IFSC Code: PUNB0798900), PAN: AIKPA5139N and it is being requested that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account.
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid saving banks account of the said petitioner and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 37 of 39 Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager of the bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the said petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
38. The respondents shall inform the petitioner(s) as well as counsel through registered post that the award amount is being transferred/ deposited so as to facilitate the petitioner(s) to know about the deposit in the account.
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 38 of 39 Copy of this award be sent through email to Sh. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager (Nodal Officer), State Bank of India at his email ID:
[email protected] in terms of Order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2003. Certified copy of the award be also sent to the manager of the concerned bank(s) where the petitioner(s) is/are having respective savings bank account(s).
Certified copy of this award be given 'Dasti' to the petitioner(s) as well as counsel and respondents as well as counsel.
Certified copy of this award be also sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
The main judgment be placed in the file pertaining to the leading/ main case bearing MACP No.1809/16 and the copy thereof be placed in the file of connected case bearing MACP No. 1810/16 .
Ahlmad is directed to prepare the separate misc. files and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 25.06.2022.
File be consigned to the record room. Digitally signed
by SUMEDH
SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:
2022.03.25
SETHI
(Announced in the open Court 17:51:21
+0530
on this 25th day of March, 2022) (Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi)
PO, MACT (SouthWest District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
25.03.2022
MACP No.: 1809/16 Om Narayan Shori vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors. MACP No.: 1810/16 Kuldeep Anand vs. Moneesh Shalehe & Ors Page no. 39 of 39