Narender Singh S/O Late Sh. Chatter ... vs Himachal Road on 5 December, 2018

[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Narender Singh S/O Late Sh. Chatter ... vs Himachal Road on 5 December, 2018

                Sh. G. N. Pandey,  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) 
                                 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.


                       In the Court of Sh. G. N Pandey 
                 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Pilot Court) 
                        Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.              

             MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17

                                                    MACT No. 164/17

IN THE MATTER OF :

                 Narender Singh S/o Late Sh. Chatter Singh aged 48 years 
                 R/o H. No. D9, Gali No. 4, Aman Mohalla, 
                 Ambedkar Vihar, Johripur Ext.,
                 Gokalpuri, Delhi110094
                                                  ............ Petitioner

                                        V E R S U S

        1.       Ramesh S/o Sh. Zile Singh 
                 R/o Village Harsola, Distt. Kaithal,
                 Haryana. 
                                     Driver cum registered owner 

        2.       The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
                 Jeevan Raksha Building, Asaf Ali Road,
                 Daryaganj, New Delhi. 
                                    Insurer 
                                                  ........ Respondents

Date of Institution of petition : 01.04.2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 05.12.2018 MACT No. 165/17 IN THE MATTER OF : Vandna Kumari S/o Narender Singh aged 19 years R/o H. No. D9, Gali No. 4, Aman Mohalla, Ambedkar Vihar, Johripur, Gokalpuri, Delhi110094 Also at: D9/56, Ambedkar Vihar, Johripur Extn, Gokalpuri, Delhi.

............ Petitioner MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 1 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

V E R S U S

1. Ramesh S/o Sh. Zile Singh R/o Village Harsola, Distt. Kaithal, Haryana.

Driver cum registered owner

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Jeevan Raksha Building, Asaf Ali Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi.

Insurer ........ Respondents Date of Institution of petition : 01.04.2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 05.12.2018 MACT No. 166/17 IN THE MATTER OF : Jyoti Kumari D/o Sh. Jaswant Singh aged 15 years Minor through her natural guardian/ father Sh. Jaswant Singh ) r/o H. No. D9/56, Ambedkar Vihar, Johripur Ext., Gokalpuri, Delhi.

............ Petitioner V E R S U S

1. Ramesh S/o Sh. Zile Singh R/o Village Harsola, Distt. Kaithal, Haryana.

Driver cum registered owner

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Jeevan Raksha Building, Asaf Ali Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi.

Insurer ........ Respondents MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 2 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

Date of Institution of petition : 01.04.2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 05.12.2018 MACT No. 167/17 IN THE MATTER OF :

1. Narender Singh S/o Sh. Chatar Singh aged 49 years.

2. Vandna Kumari D/o Sh. Narender Singh aged 19 years

3. Jatin Singh S/o Sh. Narender Singh aged 15 years ( Minor through its natural guardian/ father Sh. Narender Singh ) All Both R/o H. No. D9, Street No. 4, Ambedkar Vihar, Johripur, Gokulpuri, Delhi110094 Also at: D9/56, Ambedkar Vihar, Johripur Ext., Gokalpuri, Delhi.

............ Petitioners V E R S U S

1. Ramesh S/o Sh. Zile Singh R/o Village Harsola, Distt. Kaithal, Haryana.

Driver cum registered owner

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Jeevan Raksha Building, Asaf Ali Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi.

Insurer ........ Respondents Date of Institution of petition : 01.04.2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 05.12.2018 MACT No. 168/17 IN THE MATTER OF : Kamla Devi W/o Late Sh. Chattar Singh R/o H. No. D9/56, Ambedkar Vihar, Johripur Ext., Gokalpuri, Delhi.

............ Petitioner MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 3 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

V E R S U S

1. Ramesh S/o Sh. Zile Singh R/o Village Harsola, Distt. Kaithal, Haryana.

Driver cum registered owner

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Jeevan Raksha Building Asaf Ali Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi.

Insurer ........ Respondents Date of Institution of petition : 01.04.2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 05.12.2018 A W A R D:

1. By this common award, five claim petitions for grant of compensation U/s 166 and 140 of the MV Act, 1988 is disposed off.

2. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners contending that on 22.02.2017 Sh. Narender Singh alongwith his family members was traveling in a car No. DL 3 CAG 3734 and was driving the same while coming from Himachal to Delhi. As further contended, at about 21:00 hrs on 22.02.2017 on reaching PS Shahabad, Kurukshetra on national highway, all of a sudden, truck No. HR 63 8954 moving ahead stopped itself on middle of the road without any signal or indicator and when driver / Narender Singh of car No. DL 3 CAG 3734 tried to negotiate cut, it was not possible to ascertain while moving on highway and car struck against the rear portion of the offending truck resulting injuries to the occupants of the car namely Narender Singh, Vandna Kumari, Kamla Devi, Jyoti Kumari ( Minor) and Neena Singh ( now deceased). This accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent act of the driver MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 4 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

of the truck No. HR 63 8954. Injured Neena Singh was taken to CHC Shahabad and died due to the accidental injuries and postmortem was conducted on 23.02.2017. FIR No. 0090 dt. 23.02.2017 was registered at PS Shahabad, Kurukshetra, Haryana. Thereafter, petitioners have filed these five claim petitions for compensation i.e. MACT No. 164/17 filed by Narender Singh ; MACT No. 165/17 filed by Sh. Vandana Kumari ; MACT No. 166/17 filed by Sh. Jyoti Kumari ( minor through her father Sh. Jaswant Singh) ; MACT No. 167/17 filed by Narender Singh & Ors. for compensation towards death of Smt. Neena Singh and MACT No. 168/17 filed by Kamla Devi. The respondents in all the petitions are common.

3. The WS was filed by respondent No. 1 contended that present petition of the petitioner is not maintainable as petitioner was himself plying the car No. DL 3 CAG 3734 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed; petition is bad for the non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties as the driver / owner and insurer of the car No. DL 3 CAG 3734 are not impleaded. As further contended, false case was registered against the respondent No. 1 in collusion with the local police of the PS of Shahabad, Distt. Kurukshetra, Haryana. It is further stated that at the time of accident, the truck No. HR 63 8954 was parked on the extreme left side of the road, owing to breakdown due to fault caused in its electrical wirings.

The respondent No. 2 / insurance company claimed that this petition is not maintainable and further contended that vehicle No. HR 63 8954 was insured with the respondent No. 2 vide policy No. 33060031160200009987 w.e.f. 03.12.2016 to 02.12.2017 in the name of Sh. Ramesh / respondent No. 1.

MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 5 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

4. In view of the records, following issues were framed on 01.05.2017 in claim Petition No. 164/17:

2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Relief.

5. Following issues were framed in petition No. 165/17 on 01.05.2017 :

2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Relief.

6. Following issues were framed in petition No. 166/17 on 01.05.2017 :

1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR 63 8954 at Kurukshetra on National Highway road going MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 6 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

towards Delhi to Himachal on 22.02.2017 at about 9:00 PM by respondent No. 1 within the jurisdiction of PS Shahbad, Kurukshetra?OPP

2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Relief.

7. Following issues were framed in petition No. 167/17 on 01.05.2017 :

1. Whether deceased died on account of injuries sustained in accident took place on 22.02.2017 at about 09:00 PM at Kurukshetra on National Highway road going towards Delhi to Himachal within the jurisdiction of PS Shahbad, Kurukshetra due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. HR 63 8954 by respondent No. 1 ?OPP

2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Relief.

8. Following issues were framed in petition No. 168/17 on 01.05.2017 :

2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 7 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

3. Relief.

The evidence were recorded in the matter for disposal of the petitions.

Evidence in Petition No. 164/17

9. The petitioner Narender Singh filed his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW1/A and examined himself as PW1 and deposed regarding the claim petition. He further relied upon the following documents in support of claim and contentions i.e:

(i) Copy of adhar card Ex. PW 1/1

(ii) Treatment record and discharge summary of injured Narender Singh Ex. PW 1/ 2.

       (iii)     Original bills Ex. PW 1/ 3
       (iv)      Conveyance bill Ex. PW 1/ 4 and 
         (v)     Copy of FIR mark A1. 
         PE was thereafter closed.

10. Respondents did not lead any RE despite repeated opportunities therefore RE was closed.

Evidence in Petition No. 165/17

11. The petitioner Narender Singh examined himself as PW1 and deposed regarding the claim petition.

Injured Vandana Kumari filed her affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW 2/ A and examined herself as PW2. Witness has relied upon the documents i.e. copy of adhar card Ex. PW 2/1, certified copy of MLC Ex. PW 2/2, original treatment record Ex PW 2/3, educational qualification documents Ex. PW 2/4 and photocopy of criminal case record mark 2A. PE was thereafter closed.

12. Respondents did not lead any RE despite repeated opportunities MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 8 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

therefore RE was closed.

Evidence in Petition No. 166/17

13. Sh. Jaswant Singh, father of injured Jyoti Kumari filed his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW1/A and examined himself as PW1 and deposed regarding the claim petition. He further relied upon the following documents in support of claim and contentions i.e:

(i) Copy of Adhar Card Ex. PW 1/1

(ii) Copy of adhar card of minor injured Jyoti Kumari Ex.

PW 1/ 2

      (iii)        Treatment mark A
      (iv)         Original bills of Rs. 10,319/ Ex. PW 1/ 3
      (v)          Copy of report card of Deep public school of injured 
                   Ex. PW 1/ 4
      (vi)         Photograph of the injured showing the scar of the 
                   nose Ex. PW 1/ 5 and 
      (vii)        Copy of FIR mark A1.

The other witness Sh. Narender Singh was also examined as PW2 in support of claim and contentions. PE was thereafter closed.

14. Respondent did not lead any RE despite opportunities therefore RE was closed.

Evidence in Petition No. 167/17

15. The petitioner No. 1 Narender Singh filed his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW1/A and examined himself as PW1 and deposed regarding the claim petition. He further relied upon the following documents in support of claim and contentions i.e:

(i) Copy of adhar card Ex. PW 1/1

(ii) Copy of adhar card of deceased Ex. PW 1/ 2 MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 9 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.



      (iii)      Copy of adhar card of petitioner No. 2 Ex. PW 1/3 
      (iv)       Copy of adhar card of petitioner No. 3 Ex. PW 1/ 4 
      (v)        Postmortem report mark A and 
      (vi)       Copy of FIR mark M1.
         PE was thereafter closed.

16. Respondents did not lead any RE despite opportunities therefore RE was closed.

Evidence in Petition No. 168/17

17. The petitioner Kamla Devi filed her affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW1/A and examined herself as PW1 and deposed regarding the claim petition. She further relied upon the following documents in support of claim and contentions i.e:

(i) Copy of adhar card Ex. PW 1/1

(ii) Treatment record Ex. PW 1/ 2

(iii) Original bills amounting to Rs. 1,998/ Ex. PW 1/3

(iv) Copy of MLC and FIR mark A and Mark B. The other witness Sh. Narender Singh was examined as PW2. PE was thereafter closed.

18. Respondent did not lead any RE despite opportunities therefore RE was closed.

19. The matter was decided and the petition filed by petitioners was dismissed vide judgment dt. 17.07.2017. The said judgment was challenged before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MAC App. 276/18, 277/18, 278/18, 306/18 & 307/18 which was allowed and impugned award are set aside and the cases are remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for fresh adjudication. It is noted in the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide judgment dt. 03.07.2018 that "the Claims Tribunal shall determine the extent of contributory negligence of Narender Singh and the compensation MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 10 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

determined by the Claims Tribunal shall be reduced to the extent of contributory negligence of the Narender Singh".

20. I have heard Ld. counsel for petitioners and ld. counsel for respondent No. 2 and gone through the records.

21. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows : Issue No. 1 in claim petition No. 164/17:

1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR 63 8954 at Kurukshetra on National Highway road going towards Delhi to Himachal on 22.02.2017 at about 9:00 PM by respondent No. 1 within the jurisdiction of PS Shahbad, Kurukshetra?OPP Issue No. 1 in claim petition No. 167/17: MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 11 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

22. To succeed in the claim petitions, it is for the claimants to prove that vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver / respondent. No. 1. In all the cases, petitioners / injured examined themselves as PW and deposed about the facts of the case. They were crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for respondents and during cross examination nothing has come forward in their testimony to disbelieve the version of PWs. On the other hand, respondents did not examine any witness to rebut the contentions and deny the claim of the petitioner and mere denial is not sufficient to rebut the claim of the petitioner. No witness was produced or examined by respondents as well to prove as to how accident occurred due to the negligence of the injured/deceased; the respondent No. 1 was not at fault and was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of witnesses. I have gone through the record and documents in respect of the accident caused to the petitioner which is prima facie suggestive of MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 12 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

negligence of respondent No. 1 in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.

Relied judgment in (Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530 and the judgment in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC 646).

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Ors. V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 held as under:

"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."

23. In judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel & Ors., 2014 (2), T.A.C. 846 (Del.), it was held that in a case, where FIR is lodged, chargesheet is filed, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the vehicle in question was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side. In case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310, an adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement. It was noted that there was nothing on record to show that the Claimant had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case.

MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 13 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

24. I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana to examine the aspect of negligence wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that: In case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo and the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.

Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others V/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and it was held that, mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 14 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

benevolent legislation and not a penal one. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as under:

"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit.

25. Therefore, in view of the criminal case record, it is proved that the injured / deceased sustained simple / fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 22.02.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing No. HR 63 8954 driven by its driver i.e. respondent No. 1. The issue No. 1 in all the cases are decided accordingly. Issue No. ii in claim petition No. 164/17 :

(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP

26. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2011) 1 SCC 343 titled Raj Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Anr. examined the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases. As held:

damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer V. T. Kunhikuttan Nair MANU/SC/0011/1969 : AIR 1970 SC 375, R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control ( India) Ltd.

MANU/SC/0146/1995 : 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker V. Willoughby 1970 AC 467.

5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages ( Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earning ( and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

                          (a)        Loss   of   earning   during   the   period   of
           treatment;
                          (b)      Loss   of   future   earnings   on   account   of
           permanent disability. 

MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17                               16 of 48

Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

                 (iii)    Future medical expenses. 
                 Nonpecuniary damages (General Damages)
                 (iv)     Damages for pain, suffering   and trauma as a
           consequence of the injuries. 
                 (v)      Loss of amenities ( and/ or loss of prospects of
           marriage).
                 (vi)     Loss   of   expectation   of   life   (   shortening   of
           normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (I), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)

(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities ( and / or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (I) and under item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actual and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses item (iii) depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non pecuniary damages items (iv), (v) and (vi) - involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/ disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant.

MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 17 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed regarding assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability that disability refers to any restriction for lack of liability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for human being permanent disability refers to the residuary in capacity or loss of huge of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after receiving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed which reference to the whole body, or more often then an not, with reference to a particularly limb. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on his earnings capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earnings capacity in terms of percentage of income, it has been pointify in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earning( by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency As further held, the trial has to first decide whether there is an permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 18 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

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). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.

Hon'ble Supreme court laid down the principles in respect of the assessment of compensation regarding injuries as below:

(i) All injuries ( or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability ( except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injuredclaimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 19 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentage of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

27. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete medical records. Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that as the petitioner failed to prove his income, he is entitled for compensation in accordance with the minimum wages at relevant time. It is further stated that injured has not suffered any monetary loss on account of the injury and therefore, he should not be granted any amount on account of loss of income.

28. PW1/ petitioner has stated in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that at the time of accident, he was working as mechanic and running workshop at Main Wazirabad road and earned Rs. 17,000/ per month. No documentary proof regarding the income of the injured has been placed / proved on record in respect of his earnings. Petitioner deposed that due to the accident, he sustained serious and multiple injury. After perusal of the records, MLC of the petitioner has not been filed by the petitioner on record and this fact was admitted by ld. Proxy counsel for petitioner during proceedings. In the absence of the MLC / nature of injury, the nature of injury of the petitioner is considered to be a simple. Petitioner has not summoned and examined the witness from hospital to prove the medical bills. After perusal of the bills, no prescription has been filed by the petitioner in respect of the medical bills therefore petitioner is not awarded any amount towards medical bills. From the overall assessment, his age and MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 20 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

the fact and gravity of the injury, petitioner is granted the total compensation of Rs. 15,000/.

I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/ in favour of the Claimant and against Respondents. Issue No. ii in claim petition No. 165/17 :

(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP

29. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2011) 1 SCC 343 titled Raj Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Anr. examined the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases. As held:

4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( Act for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should , to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court of tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 21 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

K. Subramonia Iyer V. T. Kunhikuttan Nair MANU/SC/0011/1969 : AIR 1970 SC 375, R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control ( India) Ltd.

MANU/SC/0146/1995 : 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker V. Willoughby 1970 AC 467.

5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages ( Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earning ( and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

                          (a)        Loss   of   earning   during   the   period   of
           treatment;
                          (b)      Loss   of   future   earnings   on   account   of
           permanent disability. 
                 (iii)    Future medical expenses. 
                 Nonpecuniary damages (General Damages)
                 (iv)     Damages for pain, suffering   and trauma as a
           consequence of the injuries. 
                 (v)      Loss of amenities ( and/ or loss of prospects of
           marriage).
                 (vi)     Loss   of   expectation   of   life   (   shortening   of
           normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (I), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 22 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)

disability is expressed which reference to the whole body, or more often then an not, with reference to a particularly limb. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on his earnings capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earnings capacity in terms of percentage of income, it has been pointify in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earning( by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency As further held, the trial has to first decide whether there is an permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability ( this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 24 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

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.

Hon'ble Supreme court laid down the principles in respect of the assessment of compensation regarding injuries as below:

(i) All injuries ( or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(iii) The doctor who treated an injuredclaimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

30. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete medical records. Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that as the petitioner failed to prove her income, she is entitled for compensation in MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 25 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

accordance with the minimum wages at relevant time. It is further stated that injured has not suffered any monetary loss on account of the injury and therefore, she should not be granted any amount on account of loss of income.

31. PW1/ petitioner has stated in her affidavit Ex. PW1/A that she is 19 years old and is student of Delhi University and pursuing B. Com and in order to finance her education and household expenses also teaches home tuitions to student of class 4th to 8th which fetches about Rs. 17,000/ per month. No documentary proof regarding the income of the injured has been placed / proved on record in respect of her earnings. Petitioner deposed that due to the accident, she sustained serious and multiple injury. After perusal of the records, no MLC with the nature of injury has been produced / filed by petitioner on record. During proceedings, ld. Counsel for petitioner produced medical treatment records whereby no nature of injury has been mentioned at all. In the absence of the nature of injury / MLC or medical records, the nature of injury of the petitioner is considered to be a simple. From the overall assessment, her age and the fact and gravity of the injury, petitioner is granted the total compensation of Rs. 15,000/. I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/ in favour of the Claimant and against Respondents. Issue No. ii in claim petition No. 166/17 :

(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP

32. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2011) 1 SCC 343 titled Raj Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Anr. examined the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases. As held:

4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( Act for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 26 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

means that compensation should , to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court of tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer V. T. Kunhikuttan Nair MANU/SC/0011/1969 : AIR 1970 SC 375, R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control ( India) Ltd.

MANU/SC/0146/1995 : 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker V. Willoughby 1970 AC 467.

5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages ( Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earning ( and other gains) which the MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 27 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

                          (a)        Loss   of   earning   during   the   period   of
           treatment;
                          (b)      Loss   of   future   earnings   on   account   of
           permanent disability. 
                 (iii)    Future medical expenses. 
                 Nonpecuniary damages (General Damages)
                 (iv)     Damages for pain, suffering   and trauma as a
           consequence of the injuries. 
                 (v)      Loss of amenities ( and/ or loss of prospects of
           marriage).
                 (vi)     Loss   of   expectation   of   life   (   shortening   of
           normal longevity).

treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non pecuniary damages items (iv), (v) and (vi) - involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/ disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant.

Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed regarding assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability that disability refers to any restriction for lack of liability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for human being permanent disability refers to the residuary in capacity or loss of huge of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after receiving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed which reference to the whole body, or more often then an not, with reference to a particularly limb. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on his earnings capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earnings capacity in terms of percentage of income, it has been pointify in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earning( by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 29 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

dependency As further held, the trial has to first decide whether there is an permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability ( this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.

Hon'ble Supreme court laid down the principles in respect of the assessment of compensation regarding injuries as below:

(i) All injuries ( or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability ( except in a few cases, MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 30 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

33. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete medical records. PW1 / father of petitioner has stated in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that injured is student of 9th standard in Sarvodya Kanya Vidhalya, Delhi and at the time of accident, she was in 8 th standard; her daughter was on bed rest and could not resume the school for about 15 16 days. Father of injured deposed that due to the accident, injured sustained serious and multiple injury. After perusal of the records, MLC of the petitioner has not been filed by the petitioner on record and this fact was admitted by Ld. Proxy counsel for petitioner during proceedings. In the absence of the MLC / nature of injury or relevant medical records, the nature of injury of the petitioner is considered to be a simple. Petitioner has not summoned and examined the witness from hospital to prove the medical bills. After perusal of the bills, no prescription has been filed by the petitioner in respect of the medical bills therefore petitioner is not awarded any amount towards medical bills. From the overall assessment, MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 31 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

her age and the fact and gravity of the injury, petitioner is granted the total compensation of Rs. 15,000/.

I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/ in favour of the Claimant and against Respondents. Issue No. ii in claim petition No. 167/17 :

(ii) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP

34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa V/s Gurdayal Singh reported as 2003(2) SCC 274 ruled that the main guiding principle for determining the compensation is that it must be just and further that it must be reasonable. As observed in UP State Road Transport corporation V/s Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the compensation awarded in such cases has primarily two elements; the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident and the pecuniary loss sustained by members of his family on account of his death in addition to the conventional award under non pecuniary heads of damages( e.g. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc).

35. The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation on pecuniary benefit or benefits reduceable to money value. In General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V/s Susamma Thomas reported as (1994) 2 SCC 176, the court ruled that in fatal accident action, the measure of damages is the pecuniary loss suffered or likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of death and that : "9.The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 32 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that that deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether".

36. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma V/s DTC reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 held as under:

16. ... "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profits.

17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While, it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation same or similar facts should lead to award in the same range. When the factors/ inputs are the same, and the formula/ legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation.

MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 33 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

37. No amount of compensation can restore, eliminate or ameliorate the loss suffered on account of death ( or injury with lasting effect) the endeavor by such award is to repair the damage done so as to restore the victim( which includes the dependent) to the extent possible to the preaccidental position. The pecuniary damages are meant to take care of the prospective pecuniary loss of future income and the non pecuniary damages to compensate, to an extent, for pain and suffering , loss of love, companionship, expectation of life etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K Malik V/s Kiran Pal reported as 2009 (14) SCC 1 observed as under:

22. It is extremely difficult to quantify the non pecuniary compensation as it is to a great extent based upon the sentiments and emotions. But, the same could not be a ground for non payment of any amount whatsoever by stating that it is difficult to quantify and pinpoint the exact amount payable with mathematical accuracy.

23. Human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earning or monetary losses alone. There are emotional attachments involved and loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family which can be easily visualised and understood. Perhaps , the only mechanism known to law in this kind of situation is to compensate a person who has suffered non pecuniary loss or damages as a consequence of the wrong done to him by way of damages / monetary compensation. Undoubtedly, when a victim of a wrong suffers injuries he is entitled to compensation including compensation for the prospective life, pain and suffering, happiness, etc., which is sometimes described as MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 34 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

compensation paid for "loss of expectation of life".

38. The challenge in determining the ' just and reasonable' compensation in such cases is mainly due to the fact that there is virtually no evidence in actual loss of earning of the deceased child. Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K. Malik(supra) noted:

25. That being the position, the crucial problem arises with regard to the quantification of such compensation. The injury inflicted by deprivation of the life of a child is extremely difficult to quantify. In view of the uncertainties and contingencies of human life, what would be an appropriate figure, an adequate solatium is difficult to specify. The courts have therefore used the expression "standard compensation" and conventional amount/ sum"

to get over the difficulty that arises in quantifying a figure as the same ensures consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation."

39. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete records. Petitioners have prayed for compensation from respondents. Counsel for petitioners has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as 2012 ACJ 721 titled Royal Sunderam Alliance Insurance Company Limited V/s Mandeep Singh & Ors. Per contra, it is argued by Ld counsel for respondents that petitioners have not suffered any monetary loss on account of the fatal accident nor they were dependent on the deceased and therefore, they are not entitled for compensation. The Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Keith Rowe V/s Prashant Sagar & Ors ( MANU/DE 1060/2010) is relied in this respect.

40. There is no dispute at all regarding the offending vehicle nor there is dispute that deceased Neena Singh received fatal injuries due to the MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 35 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

accident. The factum of accident as well as death is not denied. The testimony of PW1 / husband of deceased remained unimpeached / uncontroverted and witness proved the relevant documents. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the respondents.

41. PW1 deposed that deceased was aged 41 years and was home maker providing all service as normally done by house wife therefore the income of the deceased has to be considered on the basis of minimum wages applicable to the unskilled workman on the date of accident i.e. 22.02.2017. Therefore, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 9,724/ per month. As per adhar card of deceased, the year of birth of deceased is 1976. The accident took place on 22.02.2017. The age of the deceased is taken as about 42 years on the date of accident i.e. 22.02.2017. As per dictum laid down in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, multiplier to be applied is 14. There is nothing on record to show that deceased was self employed or working in fixed salary; nothing is proved in respect of income of the deceased. In view of judgment of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. in SLP ( Civil) No. 25590/2014 decided on 31.10.2017, petitioners are not entitled for compensation towards future prospects.

42. In the present case, there are 3 petitioners. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Keith Rowe V/s Prashant Sagar & Ors ( MANU/DE 1060/2010), petitioners are entitled for the compensation towards loss of estate to the extent of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased. Therefore, the total loss of estate would be calculated as follows : Rs. 9,724/ X 12 (annual) X 14 (Multiplier) = Rs. 16,33,632/ Rs. 16,33,632/ / 1/3rd = Rs. 5,44,544/.

The total amount towards loss of dependency is accordingly Rs. 5,44,544/.

MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 36 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

43. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. in SLP ( Civil) No. 25590/2014 decided on 31.10.2017, the petitioners are entitled for the loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively.

Therefore, petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the following heads: Loss of dependency Rs. 5,44,544/ Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/ Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/ Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/ Total Rs. 6,14,544/ I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs. 6,14,544/ in favour of the Claimant and against respondents. Issue No. ii in claim petition No. 168/17 :

(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP

44. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2011) 1 SCC 343 titled Raj Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Anr. examined the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases. As held:

manner. The court of tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer V. T. Kunhikuttan Nair MANU/SC/0011/1969 : AIR 1970 SC 375, R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control ( India) Ltd.

MANU/SC/0146/1995 : 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker V. Willoughby 1970 AC 467.

5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages ( Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earning ( and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

                          (a)        Loss   of   earning   during   the   period   of
           treatment;
                          (b)      Loss   of   future   earnings   on   account   of

MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17                               38 of 48

Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

permanent disability.

                 (iii)    Future medical expenses. 
                 Nonpecuniary damages (General Damages)
                 (iv)     Damages for pain, suffering   and trauma as a
           consequence of the injuries. 
                 (v)      Loss of amenities ( and/ or loss of prospects of
           marriage).
                 (vi)     Loss   of   expectation   of   life   (   shortening   of
           normal longevity).

claimant.

Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed regarding assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability that disability refers to any restriction for lack of liability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for human being permanent disability refers to the residuary in capacity or loss of huge of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after receiving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed which reference to the whole body, or more often then an not, with reference to a particularly limb. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on his earnings capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earnings capacity in terms of percentage of income, it has been pointify in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earning( by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency As further held, the trial has to first decide whether there is an permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 40 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability ( this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.

Hon'ble Supreme court laid down the principles in respect of the assessment of compensation regarding injuries as below:

(i) All injuries ( or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(iii) The doctor who treated an injuredclaimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 41 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

45. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete medical records. Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that as the petitioner failed to prove her income, she is entitled for compensation in accordance with the minimum wages at relevant time. It is further stated that injured has not suffered any monetary loss on account of the injury and therefore, she should not be granted any amount on account of loss of income.

46. PW1/ petitioner has stated in her affidavit Ex. PW1/A that she is house wife and was providing gratuitous services as normally a house wife / home maker. Petitioner deposed that due to the accident, she sustained serious and multiple injury. After perusal of the records, no MLC with the nature of injury has been produced / filed by petitioner on record. During proceedings, ld. Counsel for petitioner produced medical treatment records whereby no nature of injury has been mentioned at all. In the absence of the nature of injury / MLC or medical records, the nature of injury of the petitioner is considered to be a simple. Petitioner has not summoned and examined the witness from hospital to prove the medical bills. After perusal of the bills, no prescription has been filed by the petitioner in respect of the medical bills therefore petitioner is not awarded any amount towards medical bills. From the overall assessment, her age MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 42 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

and the fact and gravity of the injury, petitioner is granted the total compensation of Rs. 15,000/.

I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/ in favour of the Claimant and against Respondents. Liability:

47. Respondent No. 2 is the insurance company which admittedly has issued a valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle. There is no evidence on behalf of respondent No. 2 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondent No. 1. Hence, I am of the opinion that respondent No. 2 being insurance company is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of respondent No. 1. Interim award if any paid to injured/ petitioner be adjusted in the award amount. Award in MACT No. 164/17:

48. Resultantly, the Claim petition stands allowed. Insurance company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 15,000/ within one month to the Claimants. Claimants are also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC).

49. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi.

50. Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to Claimant after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).

51. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 43 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

Company, within 30 days. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.

52. FormV shall be read as a part of the judgment. Award in MACT No. 165/17:

53. Resultantly, the Claim petition stands allowed. Insurance company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 15,000/ within one month to the Claimants. Claimants are also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC).

54. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi.

55. Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to Claimant after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).

56. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance Company, within 30 days. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 44 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.

57. FormV shall be read as a part of the judgment. Award in MACT No. 166/17:

58. Resultantly, the Claim petition stands allowed. Insurance company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 15,000/ within one month to the Claimants. Claimants are also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC).

59. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi.

60. Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to Claimant after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).

61. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance Company, within 30 days. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.

62. FormV shall be read as a part of the judgment. Award in MACT No. 167/17:

63. Resultantly, the Claim petition stands allowed. Insurance company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 6,14,544/ within one MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 45 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

month to the Claimants. Claimants are also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC).

64. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi.

65. Out of the total award amount of Rs. 6,14,544/, UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to keep the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ in 4 FDRs of Rs. 50,000/ each for the maturity period of six month to two years respectively ( at the interval of six month each) with cumulative interest in the name of petitioner No. 1.

66. An amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ in favour of petitioner No. 3 shall be deposited in form of one FDR till he attain the age of maturity.

67. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to release the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ in favour of petitioner No. 2 in her saving bank account after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).

68. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to release the remaining amount alongwith interest in favour of petitioner No. 1 in his saving bank account after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).

69. Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to the petitioner after due verification.

70. All the original FDRs shall be retained by the UCO bank, KKD MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 46 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

Courts. However, the statement containing the FDRs number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the UCO Bank to the petitioner/ beneficiary. On expiry of period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in Savings Account of beneficiary. The beneficiary shall intimate regarding his bank and account number for automatic credit of the maturity amount.

71. No loan, advance or premature discharge of the FDRs shall be permitted without permission of this court.

72. The maturity amount of the FDRs alongwith interest thereon be transferred to the saving bank accounts of the beneficiary.

73. The liberty is given to the petitioner/ injured to approach this court for release of further amount in event of any financial exigency.

74. On request of Claimant, bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch in the name of petitioner and the bank of the petitioner are directed not to issue any cheque book or Debit Card to the account holder.

75. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance Company, within 30 days. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.

76. FormV shall be read as a part of the judgment. Award in MACT No. 168/17:

77. Resultantly, the Claim petition stands allowed. Insurance company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 15,000/ within one month to the Claimants. Claimants are also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 47 of 48 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC).

78. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi.

79. Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to Claimant after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).

80. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance Company, within 30 days. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.

81. FormV shall be read as a part of the judgment

82. Copy of this judgment be placed in the claim petitions bearing MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17.

Digitally signed by GORAKH NATH

                                                GORAKH                      PANDEY
                                                                            Location: Court
                                                NATH                        No.69, North East
                                                                            District, Karkardooma
 Announced in open Court                        PANDEY                      Court, Delhi
                                                                            Date: 2018.12.05
 on this day of 05th December,  2018                                        16:57:40 +0530
                                               G. N. Pandey

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

MACT Nos. 164/17, 165/17, 166/17, 167/17 & 168/17 48 of 48

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Narender Singh S/O Late Sh. Chatter ... vs Himachal Road on 5 December, 2018