Delhi District Court
Jyoti And Ors (Dar) vs Sonu Kumar (Fir 285/21 Ps Saket U/S ... on 26 March, 2024
Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
DLST010039792022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR-II :
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 126/2022
CNR No. DLST01- 003979-2022
JYOTI AND ORS. VS. SONU KUMAR
FIR NO. 285/21 PS SAKET
1. Ms. Jyoti
D/o Satish
R/o Prop No. A-14, Ansal Villas,
Satberi, South Delhi,
Delhi - 110074. ..injured
2.Ms. Sushma
D/o Guru Prasad
R/o B-262, Sangam Vihar
New Delhi - 110062. ..injured
3. Mohammad Naeem
S/o Munnu Khan
R/o A-941, Sangam Vihar,
Pushpa Bhawan, South Delhi
Delhi - 110062. ..injured
4. Ragini
D/o Surya Bhan Singh
R/o F-58, Humayun Pur,
Safdarjung Enclave,
south Delhi - 110029 ..injured
....PETITIONERS
Versus
1.Sonu Kumar
MACT No.126/2022 1/35
Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
S/o Sh. Kameshwar Singh
R/o VPO Haraj PS Sikar Ganj,
Distt. Motihari, Bihar ..driver
2. Mr. Shiv Veer Singh
S/o Mr. Ganga Ram
R/o H.NO. K-2-153, Harijan Basti,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi - 110062. ..owner
3.Future General Insurance Company ltd.
New Delhi. ... Insurance company
Date of Institution : 05.05.2022
Date of reserving of judgment/
order : 20.03.2024
Date of pronouncement : 26.03.2024
JUDGMENT:
1. These are four claims for compensation arising out of the Detailed Accident Report filed u/s 158(6) Motor Vehicle Act, qua petitioners Ms. Jyoti, Mohd. Naeem, Ms. Ragini and Ms. Sushma for the injuries suffered by them in a vehicular accident which occurred on 28.09.2021 with respect to which FIR No.285/21 U/s 279/337/338 IPC and 3/181, 5/181 MV Act was registered at Police Station Saket and charge-sheet was filed against R-1 Sonu Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle owned by respondent no. 2/ Shiv veer Singh and insured with the respondent no. 3/ Future General Insurance company Ltd. The same is treated as petition under Section u/s 166 and 140 MV Act qua all the injured.
2. The IO has filed copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and the charge-sheet in the DAR.
MACT No.126/2022 2/35Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the DAR are that on 28.09.2021 at about 3.30 pm, the petitioners Ragini, Jyoti, Sushma and Naeem were on duty at T.B. Hospital, Red Light Aurobindo Marg, Lado Sarai, New Delhi being deputed as Civil Defence Volunteers deployed as Bus Marshal and after making challan, they were standing near Red Light of T.B. Hospital, suddenly offending vehicle TATA 407 DL-1LY-5931 which was coming from Chhatarpur side in a rash and negligent manner came and hit all the petitioners due to which they all sustained injuries.
4. Joint reply was filed by the respondent no(s). 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner submitting that the allegations made against the respondents were false, frivolous, baseless and concocted as the respondent no.1 was not driving the alleged Tata 407 on the alleged date, time and place of accident. It is submitted that the aforesaid vehicle i.e. DL-1LY-5931 is owned by respondent no. 2/ Sh. Veer Singh and on the alleged date and time of accident, the owner Sh. Veer Singh was driving the vehicle and the accused Sonu who was minor at that time was sitting on his adjoining seat and no accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Sonu. At the time of accident, the driver Veer Singh was having a valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was duly insured with Future General India Insurance Company which would be liable to pay compensation. It is submitted that no accident has been caused by the respondent no. 1 on any alleged date, place and time and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the claimants in connivance with the local police.
5. The claims, however were contested by the insurance MACT No.126/2022 3/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
Company by filing reply under Form XI inter-alia stating that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without any driving license in an intoxicated condition and section 3/181, 5/180, 184, 185 MV Act were also invoked against the driver and owner by the IO. The driver was driving the alleged offending vehicle with the knowledge and consent of the owner and insured at the time of accident. The alleged offending vehicle was thus being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the insurance company has no liability to pay any compensation in the present case and the liability to pay compensation if any, is that of the owner.
6. After completion of the pleadings, vide order dated 11.10.2022 following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor:-
1. Whether petitioners /injured persons Jyoti, Naheem, Ragni, Sushma sustained injuries in a road accident on 28.09.2021 at about 3.30 pm near Red Light T.B. Hospital, Aurobindo Marg, Lado Sarai, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration number TATA 407 No. DL-1YL-
5931 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2, and insured with respondent no. 3? ... OPP
2. In case, issue no. 1 is decided in affirmative then to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? .... OPP
3. Relief.
7. Thereafter the matter was referred to Local Commissioner for recording of the evidence on behalf of the parties and Ld. Local Commissioner after recording evidence filed his report.
MACT No.126/2022 4/35Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the court record.
My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 19. In a claim petition, onus is on the claimant(s)/ petitioner(s) to prove that the injured persons suffered injuries in a vehicular accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. In order to establish their claims, the injured have examined themselves as PW1 to PW4.
11. The respondent no.(s) 1 and 2 examined themselves as RW1/A and RW1/B.
12. Insurance company has examined Sh. Subham Solanki, working as Legal Executive in Future General Indian Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. as R3W1/A.
13. The injured Sushma examined herself as PW1. She filed her affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/A. She deposed on the lines of her claim and stated that she is working in DTC, Security Department as a Civil Defence Volunteer deployed as Bus Marshal and earning Rs.22,260/- approx per month. She deposed that on 28.09.2021 at about 3.30 pm she alongwith Ragini, Jyoti and Nahim were standing near Red Light of T.B. Hospital Red light Aurobindo Marg, Lado Sarai after making challan of the vehicles, suddenly offending vehicle Tata 407 DL-
MACT No.126/2022 5/35Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
1LY-5931 coming from chhatarpur side in a high speed came hit four of them and after hitting them the offending vehicle hit the standing vehicle no. UK-18K-7834 from front side. The injured were removed to Safdarjung Hospital by ambulance as somebody has called 100 number for first aid on 28.09.2021 and were discharged on the same day. She has relied upon the following documents :-
• Copy of her aadhar card Ex.PW1/1.
• DAR Ex.PW1/2.
• Copy of her MLC issued by Safdarjung Hospital Ex.PW1/3.
In her cross-examination by Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 3/insurance company, she stated that she is 10 th pass. She has not filed any document pertaining to her educational qualification. She denied the suggestion that there was no negligence on the part of TATA 407 in causing the accident. All four of them moved in one direction towards lado sarai to avoid the accident. She stated that at present she is working as beautician at J-3 DDA Flats Alaknanda.
In her cross-examination by Ms. Sabita Kumari, Ld. counsel for the respondent no(s) 1 and 2, she stated that she was on duty at the time of accident. She was standing in the middle of footpath near red light. She had not seen the driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident.
14. The injured Mohd. Naeem examined himself as PW2. He filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW2/A. He also deposed on the lines of his claim and stated that he is working in DTC, Security Department as a Delhi Civil Defence Volunteer deployed as Bus Marshal and earning Rs.22,260/- approx per month. After the accident, he was removed to Safdarjung Hospital by ambulance as somebody has called up on 100 for MACT No.126/2022 6/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
first aid on 28.09.2021 and discharged on the same day. He has relied upon the following documents :-
• Copy of his aadhar card Ex.PW2/1.
• Copy of his MLC issued by Safdarjung Hospital Ex.PW2/2 • Copy of discharge summary Ex.PW2/4.
• Medical bills for Rs.355/- Ex.PW2/5.
In his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 3/insurance company, he stated that he is graduate. He has not filed any documents pertaining to his educational qualification. He could not remember the registration number of the offending vehicle, however it was a TATA 407. He denied the suggestion that the accident was caused due to his own negligence as he was standing on the middle of the road. He stated that the site map was not prepared by the police in his presence or with his consultation. He had seen the offending vehicle from a distance of around 70-80 metres while it was coming towards them on a high speed. He denied the suggestion that the distance of around 70-80 meters was good enough for him to react and totally avoid the accident. He has not filed any document to show that he was earning Rs.22260/- per month at the time of accident. He was not terminated from civil defence, they were told to wait for the next circular. He admitted that he has sustained simple injuries in the said accident. He was discharged on the same day of accident from Safdarjung Hospital.
In his cross-examination by Ms. Sabita Kumari, Ld. counsel for the respondent no(s) 1 and 2, he stated that he was working in DTC Security department for more than one year prior to his accident. He alongwith three other victims were also on duty at the time of accident. He was standing at a distance of 50 meters near red light. He had not seen the driver of alleged offending vehicle at the time of accident. He MACT No.126/2022 7/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
had seen offending vehicle hitting him at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that he has filed a false case to get higher compensation.
15. The injured Jyoti examined herself as PW3. She filed her affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW3/A. She also also deposed on the lines of her claim and stated that she is working in DTC, Security Department as a Delhi Civil Defence Volunteer deployed as Bus Marshal and earning Rs.22,260/- approx per month. She deposed that she was removed to Safdarjung Hospital by ambulance as somebody has called up on 100 for first aid on 28.09.2021 and discharged on the same day. She was not able to work after the accident. She suffered great pain and suffering, loss of income, loss of enjoyment of life due to this accident. She has relied upon the following documents :-
• Copy of her aadhar card as Ex.PW1/1.
• DAR already exhibited as PW1/2.
• Copy of MLC issued by Safdarjung Hospital as Ex.PW3/1.
In her cross-examination by Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 3/insurance company, she stated that she is 12 th pass. She has not filed any document pertaining to her educational qualification. She denied the suggestion that there was no negligence on the part of TATA 407 in causing the accident. All four of them went in one direction towards the lado sarai railing to avoid the accident. She denied the suggestion that the injuries in the accident occurred as chaos happened because all four was ran in one direction. She further denied the suggestion that accident caused due to her own negligence as she was standing in the middle of the road. Presently, she is working in the Conformation Department with Pro Cricket Championship Trophy and earning Rs.14000/- per month.
In her cross-examination by Ms. Sabita Kumari, Ld. counsel MACT No.126/2022 8/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
for the respondent no(s) 1 and 2, she stated that she was working in DTC Security department since 2019 prior to her accident. She was standing near divider (railing) of the road near red light. She had not seen the driver of the alleged offending vehicle at the time of accident. She had seen the offending vehicle hitting her at the time of accident.
16. Another injured Ragini examined herself as PW4. She filed her affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW4/A. She also deposed on the lines of her claim and stated that she is working in DTC, Security Department as a Delhi Civil Defence Volunteer deployed as Bus Marshal and earning Rs.22,260/- approx per month. She deposed that she was removed to Safdarjung Hospital by ambulance as somebody has called up on 100 number for first aid on 28.09.2021 and discharged on 12.10.2021. She was not able to work after the accident. She suffered great pain and suffering, loss of income, loss of enjoyment of life due to this accident.
She has relied upon the following documents in support of her contentions :-
• Copy of her aadhar card as Ex.PW4/1.
• DAR already exhibited as PW1/2.
• Copy of MLC issued by Safdarjung Hospital as Ex.PW4/3. • Copy of her discharge summary Ex.PW4/4.
• Copy of her disability certificate Ex.PW4/5. • Copy of medical bills Ex.PW4/6.
• Copy of ID Proof DTC as Ex.PW4/7.
• Copy of bank pass book as Ex.PW4/8.
• Copy of additional medical bills as Ex.PW4/9.
In her cross-examination by Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 3/insurance company, she stated that she is BA Pass. She has not filed any document pertaining to her educational qualification. She denied the suggestion that there was no negligence on the part of TATA 407 in MACT No.126/2022 9/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
causing the accident. She admitted that she has not filed any medical certificate to show that she is not in a position to work for gain at present. At present, she is not working anywhere as she has been married since 15.12.2022.
In her cross-examination by Ms. Sabita Kumari, Ld. counsel for the respondent no(s) 1 and 2, she stated that she was working in DTC Security department for one year prior to her accident. She was on duty at the time of accident. She was standing on footpath near red light.
17. The respondent no. 1/ driver of the offending vehicle Sh.
Sonu Kumar examined himself as RW1/A. He deposed that he was not driving the alleged Tata 407 on the alleged date, time and place of accident and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the claimants to extort monetary gain in collusion with the police. He deposed that the aforesaid vehicle is owned by Sh. Veer Singh and on the alleged date and time of accident, the owner Sh. Veer Singh was driving the vehicle and he was sitting on his near seat and no accident has occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. The driver Veer Singh was having valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was duly insured with Future General India Insurance Company Ltd. No accident has been caused by the respondent no. 1 on any alleged date, place and time and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the claimants in connivance with the local police.
In his cross-examination by Sh. Brijesh Bagga, Ld. counsel for insurance company, he admitted that he does not have any driving licence to drive. Apart from claim petition, he is facing criminal trial before Ld. MM in Saket Courts. He admitted that he is aware that he has been accused as offending driver in the criminal case which is pending in MACT No.126/2022 10/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
the Court of Ld. MM. He has not lodged any complaint or any protest before any authority for making him the offending driver in the criminal case. He was employed by the respondent no. 2 Shiv Veer Singh. He has never seen the driving licence of the respondent no. 2 Shiv veer Singh. He was sleeping at the time of accident therefore, he do not know as to how the accident occurred. He did not know due to whose fault the accident occurred. He denied the suggestion that accident dated 28.09.2021 occurred due to his rash and negligent driving.
18. Sh. Shiv Veer Singh is the owner of the offending vehicle and was examined as RW2/A. He deposed that the respondent Sonu Kumar was not driving the alleged Tata 407 on the alleged date, time and place of accident and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the claimants to extort monetary gain in collusion with the police. The aforesaid vehicle i.e. DL-1LY-5931 is owned by him and on the alleged date and time of accident, he was driving the vehicle and the accused Sonu was sitting on his near seat and no accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Sonu. At the time of accident, he was having valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was duly insured with Future General India Insurance Company ltd. Hence if any liability accrues, the insurance company would be liable to pay the same. No accident has been caused by the respondent no. 1 on any alleged date, place and time and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the claimant in connivance with the local police.
In his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for the petitioner, he stated that he is the owner of the offending vehicle. His vehicle was found on the place of the accident. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of Tata 407. He was MACT No.126/2022 11/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
not apprehended from the spot of the accident. Voluntarily he stated that he had run away from the spot.
In his cross-examination by Sh. Brijesh Bagga, Ld. counsel for the insurance company, he stated that he has not produced any document to show the respondent no. 1 was employed with him. He had never seen any driving licence with the respondent no. 1. He denied the suggestion that such averment of him driving the vehicle has been made only after the respondent no. 1 was apprehended for no driving licence. He is aware that he has been challaned under section 5/180 MV Act in criminal case. He is aware t hat the Ld. MM discharged him after receipt of fine whereby he admitted his mistake.
19. Insurance company has examined Mr. Subham Solanki working as legal executive with the insurance company as R3W1/A who filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.R3W1/A wherein he deposed that he is working as legal executive with the respondent no. 3 company. The respondent no. 3 had issued a future secure commercial vehicle insurance policy bearing no. V8995030 for the period from 10.09.2021 to 09.09.2022 in favour of Shiv Veer Singh in respect of the vehicle bearing no. DL-1YL-5931. The driver Sonu was driving the alleged offending vehicle in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver was driving the vehicle without any valid driving license to drive the same in an intoxicated condition. This fact has been disclosed by the investigating officer in DAR and Sections 3/181, 5/180, 184, 185 MV Act have been added against the alleged offending driver/owner for the same. The respondent no. 3 issued notices under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC upon the respondent no. 1 for producing his original driving license and the respondent no. 2 Shiv Veer Singh, the owner for producing the MACT No.126/2022 12/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
original insurance policy bearing no. V8995030 issued by the respondent no. 3 in respect of his vehicle for producing the original driving license. The office copies of the notices and the postal receipts are Ex.R3W1/1 to R3W1/4 respectively. He has relied upon the following documents in support of his contentions:-
• Office copy of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC (respondent no.
2) Ex.R3W1/1.
• Postal receipts of notice to respondent no. 2 Ex.R3W1/2. • Office copy of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC (respondent no.
1) Ex.R3W1/3.
• Postal receipts of notice to respondent no. 1 Ex.R3W1/4. • Office copy of insurance alongwith terms and conditions Ex.R3W1/5.
In his cross-examination by counsel for the petitioner, he stated that he is working with the respondent no. 3 since June 2022. He admitted that vehicle bearing no. DL-1LY-5931 was insured with insurance company at the time of accident.
20. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has argued forcefully that from the evidence of PWs coupled with the criminal record, the petitioners have proved the fact that it was the respondent no. 1 who was responsible for the injuries caused to the claimants due to his rash and negligent driving. It has been submitted that even the respondents have not disputed involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. It is submitted that as the respondent no. 1 Sonu Kumar was not having a valid licence and was intoxicated at the time of accident, the respondents have tried to substitute the "owner" of the vehicle as the "driver" at the time of accident.
MACT No.126/2022 13/35Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
21. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has argued that the injured have suffered injuries due to their own negligence and the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without having driving licence, hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
22. The respondent no(s). 1 and 2 in their joint WS have for the first time raised the plea that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 2/ owner of the offending vehicle and not the respondent no. 1 as alleged by the IO and the claimants. In their WS, they have submitted that the respondent no. 1/ Sonu was minor at that time and was sitting on the seat adjacent to the driver. It has come up on the record that the respondent no. 1 was not having a valid licence on the date of accident to drive the said vehicle whereas the owner Veer Singh who accompanied him was having a valid licence. It seems that to avoid the liability being shifted upon them, the respondent no(s). 1 and 2 have become wiser while filing their WS before the Tribunal. It has come up that all the four petitioners also stated that they have not seen the driver at the time of accident, however the IO has filed charge-sheet against the driver Sonu i.e. the respondent no. 1 herein. The respondent no(s). 1 and 2 have also filed their affidavits in evidence and also examined themselves in respondent's evidence. The respondent no. 1/ Sonu admitted in his cross-examination by the counsel for the insurance company Mr. Brijesh Bagga that he does not have any driving licence to drive. Further, he has admitted that he was facing the criminal trial before the Ld. MM wherein he has been accused of driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. He further admitted that till date he has not lodged any complaint or filed any protest petition before any MACT No.126/2022 14/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
authority for making him driver of the offending vehicle in the criminal case. Even the respondent no. 2 who has also examined himself as RW2/A, in his testimony stated that he himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he even ran away from the spot after the accident. However, he has also not raised any such plea before the Ld. MM where the charge-sheet has been filed against both the respondent no(s). 1 and 2 for the offences u/s 3/181, 5/180, 184, 185 MV Act. Even the MLC of the driver of the respondent no. 1 shows that he was drunk for which the offence u/s 185 MV has been invoked by the IO. None of the respondents till date challenged the filing of the chargesheet or the invoking of the said sections against them. It is mentioned in the chargesheet that a separate kalandra was filed against the respondents for the offences u/s 3/181, 5/180, 184, 185 MV Act. As per the record, furnished by the IO, both the respondents have pleaded guilty to the offences alleged in the kalandra and were fined by the Ld. MM. The respondent no. 2 in his cross-examination also admitted that he was challaned for the offence u/s 5/180 MV Act for allowing the respondent no. 1 to drive the vehicle unauthorizedly. Both the respondents before this Tribunal have raised totally contradictory plea only for the purpose of shifting the liability. All the petitioners have given the correct registration number of the offending vehicle in their evidence. The plea that they could not identify the accused at the time of accident can not support the case of the respondent no.(s) 1 and 2.
12. As far as rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1 is concerned, it is a settled legal position that while deciding a petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, the Claims Tribunal has to decide negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard is MACT No.126/2022 15/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable u/s 166 & 140 of the M V Act.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also made observations in regard to principles of evidence and standard of proof applicable in MACT cases in the following judgments :-
In Sunita vs. Rajasthan SRTC, (2020) 13 SCC 486, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases".
Further, in Anita Sharma vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 1 SCC 171, the Supreme Court of India further held "that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role MACT No.126/2022 16/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non- examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true".
24. To determine the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Supreme Court of India in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 held that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Certified copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 until proved to be contrary.
26. Further, in this regard observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana and Ors. reported in 2007 SCC online DEL 1700 has to be considered wherein it was held that :-
"the wife of the deceased had produced (1) certified copy of criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004 pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle; (2) Criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge-sheet under Section 279/304-A IPC against the driver; (3) certified copy of FIR wherein criminal case against the drive was lodged; and (4 ) recover memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs MACT No.126/2022 17/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent."
27. In this regard, reliance can also be placed upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal; 2007 (5) Scale 269 wherein it was observed that the petitioner wife of the deceased having produced the (1) certified copy of the criminal record showing completion of investigation by the police filing of the chargesheet against the driver, (II) certified copy of FIR registered against the driver, (III) recovery memo and (IV) mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle and the vehicle of the deceased. It was held that these documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver.
28. Accident in the matter is not disputed. Involvement of vehicle is also undisputed. Injured persons have specifically submitted regarding the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1 which led to the accident. Their versions are duly supported by the investigation conducted by the IO and the documents furnished by them alongwith the charge-sheet. No other version of accident has come on record except the one as narrated by the PWs. As already observed, respondent no(s). 1 and 2 have raised only a false plea to the effect that the respondent no. 2 was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident, however the same is falsified by the record as noted above. None of them has controverted the PWs on the allegations of offending vehicle being MACT No.126/2022 18/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
driven rashly and negligently. In this regard, nothing material has come up in the cross-examination of PWs also. Their testimonies are also corroborated by the investigation conducted by the IO even as per the chargesheet.
29. On the basis of evidence on record, above observations and discussion it is proved that the abovesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of R1 Sonu Kumar due to which all the four injured received injuries. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners.
Findings on Issue no.2:
To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled and from whom?
30. Now, the court has to assess as to how much compensation be awarded to the claimant and by whom? First of all the court has to decide as to whom the liability to pay the compensation is fastened.
31. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.3 in order to exonerate the insurance company from its liability contended that the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no.1 without a valid and effective driving licence. In support of his contention he referred the testimony of of R3W1 Mr. Subham Solanki, Legal Executive.
32. From the entire discussion in the issue no. 1, it is already observed that the respondent no. 1 who was not having a valid driving licence was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The MACT No.126/2022 19/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
respondent no(s).1 and respondent no.2 were challaned u/s 3/181 and 5/180, 184, 185 M.V. Act respectively. The chargesheet were never disputed by the respondents. They have even pleaded guilty to the offences u/s 3/181 and 5/180 MV Act before the Ld. MM. The driver must have valid and effective license to drive the vehicle. But in the present case the vehicle was driven without any driving license and it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, the respondent no(s). 1 and 2 are held liable to pay the compensation.
33. However, balancing the "twin interest" of the Insurance Company at one hand and that of the third party i.e. petitioners for whose benefit the present legislation was brought on the statute book, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation awarded to the petitioner within the time given in this award and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent No(s). 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
34. Now the Court has to decide the compensation which the injured persons are entitled. Injured in road traffic accident are entitled to damages for the injuries suffered by them arising out of use of Motor Vehicle under both non-pecuniary and pecuniary heads.
COMPENSATION FOR THE INJURED SUSHMA
35. In the present case, the injured Sushma has sustained simple injury as per the MLC Ex.PW1/3. The petitioner has placed on record medical bills of Rs.890/-. This court is of the opinion that a lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.25000/- would be proper and just for the injury suffered by the petitioner Sushma. Therefore, I award as sum of MACT No.126/2022 20/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
Rs.25,000/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the DAR till its realization to the petitioner.
COMPENSATION FOR THE INJURED NAEEM
36. As per the MLC Ex.PW2/2, the injured Naeem has also sustained simple injury. The petitioner has placed on record medical bills of Rs.355/-. This court is of the opinion that a lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- would be proper and just for the injury suffered by the petitioner Naeem. Therefore, I award as sum of Rs.25,000/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the DAR till its realization to the petitioner.
COMPENSATION FOR THE INJURED JYOTI
37. In the present case, the injured Jyoti has sustained grievous injury as per the MLC Ex.PW3/1. She was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital on AIIMS on 28.09.2021 and discharged on the same day with some advice. The petitioner has placed on record medical bills of Rs.430/-. Due to the accidental injury, the injured must have suffered mental agony and pain and the injured must have visited hospital while arranging some cab/ auto to visit the hospital. Therefore, looking into the injuries sustained by the injured Jyoti, I award her a lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. The entire amount is directed to be released to the petitioner/ Injured Jyoti.
COMPENSATION FOR THE INJURED RAGINI MEDICAL EXPENSES :
38. As per the MLC, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries.
MACT No.126/2022 21/35Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
The petitioner has filed medical bills to the tune of Rs.86,849/-. Medical bills are in the name of petitioner coincide with the period of treatment. These documents were never disputed. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and bills place on record, I hereby grant a sum of Rs.86,849/- towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
39. As per the discharge summary, the petitioner Ragini was diagnosed with closed traumatic # ® subtrochanteric femure without DNVD. The injured remained admitted in Safdarjung Hospital from 07.10.2021 to 12.10.2021. The petitioner/injured has suffered 6% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb. The injuries on the person of the petitioner were grievous in nature. Looking into the injuries, age and treatment of the petitioner, I award Rs.70,000/- to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life. SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
40. In the present case, the petitioner has not filed on record original bill with regard to the expenses on special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. However, looking into the injuries and age of the petitioner, I award her Rs.30,000/- towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
41. Here in the present case, the petitioner has stated that she was working in DTC, Security Department as a Delhi Civil Defence Volunteers deployed as Bus Marshal and was earning Rs.22,260/- per month. She has also produced her bank statement on record as Ex.PW4/8 showing entries on 15.12.2021 and 18.12.2021 for a sum of Rs.21896 and Rs.22678 from Pay and Accounts Office-I. The said entries were never disputed by the insurance company. In these circumstances, MACT No.126/2022 22/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
Rs.22,287/- per month being the mean is taken as her earnings for ascertaining the claim.
The injuries on the person of petitioner Ragini were such that she might have remained out of work for about three months. Hence I award a sum of Rs.66,861/- (22,287/- x 3) towards loss of income during period of treatment.
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE DISABILITY 42. The petitioner had suffered 6% permanent physical
impairment in respect of right Lower Limb. It was held in the case of "Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC)" :-
"In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle- rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or MACT No.126/2022 23/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
a cycle-rickshaw-puller.
The question of loss of earning capacity resulting from amputation of one the legs in the case of a tanker driver was considered by this Court in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, (2008) 8 SCC 518. In that case, a tanker driver suffered serious injuries in a motor accident and as a result, his right leg was amputated upto the knee joint. He made a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that disability suffered by him as a result of the loss of the leg was 100% and awarded compensation to him on that basis. In appeal, the High Court, like in the present case, referred to the Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and held that the loss of a leg on amputation amounted to reduction in the earning capacity by 60% and, accordingly, reduced the compensation awarded to the tanker driver. This Court set aside the High Court judgment and held that the tanker driver had suffered 100% disability and incapacity in earning his keep as a tanker driver as his right leg was amputated from the knee and, accordingly, restored the order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. In K. Janardhan this Court also referred to and relied upon an earlier decision of the Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289, in which a carpenter who suffered an amputation of his left arm from the elbow was held to have suffered complete loss of his earning capacity.
In a more recent decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, this Court considered in great detail the correlation between the physical disability suffered in an accident and the loss of earning capacity resulting from it. In paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment in Raj Kumar, this Court made the following observations:MACT No.126/2022 24/35
Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation.MACT No.126/2022 25/35
Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
43. In a very recent judgment announced by the Supreme Court of India in case title Sri Anthony alias Anthony Swamy v. The Manging Director, K.S.R.T.C. on 10.06.2020. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the principles set out for grant of compensation in cases of permanent physical functional disability as mentioned above.
44. In the present case, the petitioner has suffered 6% permanent disability in relation to her Right Lower limb in this accident. The rule half of the disability percentage has to be taken as functional disability, therefore, I take her functional disability as 3% of the whole body. As per the Aadhar Card, the year of birth of the petitioner is 1998. The accident took place on 28.09.2021. Hence, she was 23 years of age at the time of accident. Taking a multiplier of '18', the future loss of income comes to Rs.31,201/- (Rs.22,287/- + 22,287 x 40/100) x 12 x 18 x 3% = Rs.2,02,182/-. I therefore, award Rs.2,02,182/- to the petitioner Ragini towards Future Loss of Income on account of permanent disability.
Loss of Amenities :
45. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner was not certainly able to participate in the normal activities of her daily life to pursue her talents, recreation interest, hobbies and evocations. The injuries would also have an effect on her social life. I therefore, award Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of amenities.
46. The total compensation of the petitioner hence comes out to be :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :Rs.86,849/-
PAIN & SUFFERINGS &
MACT No.126/2022 26/35
Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :Rs.70,000/-
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE &
ATTENDANT :Rs. 30,000/-
LOSS OF INCOME :Rs. 66,861/-
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.2,02,182/-
LOSS OF AMENITIES : Rs. 50,000/-
==========
TOTAL :Rs.5,05,892/-
==========
RELIEF
47. In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to the injured Sushma, Rs.25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to the injured Naeem, Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the injured Jyoti and Rs.5,05,892/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs Five Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Two only) to the injured Ragini along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR till its realization. Entire amount be released to the injured persons on their saving bank accounts.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
48. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent no. 3 are directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
MACT No.126/2022 27/35Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
49. The respondent no.3 are directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the Ld. counsel for the respondent no.3.
50. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SOUTH SAKET COURT A/c 42706751873 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner.
51. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP)
52. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner :-
• The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi. • Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity. • No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
• The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the MACT No.126/2022 28/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's . • The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period. • No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court. • Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court. • On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
• Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
• The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs. • The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period. • The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 3
• The Respondent no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today. • The Respondent no. 3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State MACT No.126/2022 29/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed. • The Respondent no. 3 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same. • Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no. 3.
• The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no.3 for 15.05.2024.
FORM IV-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY OF SUSHMA TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 28.09.2021
2. Name of the injured : Sushma
3. Age of the injured: 39 years
4. Nature of injury : Simple Computation of Compensation S. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal 7 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment ---
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance & ---
attendant
iii Loss of earning capacity ----
iv Loss of Income ----
MACT No.126/2022 30/35
Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
v Any other loss which may require any special ----
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
8 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock -----
ii Pain and suffering 25000/-
iii Loss of amenities of life & Marriage ---
prospects
iv Loss of Education -----
v Loss of marriage prospects -----
vi Compensation on account of permanent ----
disability
9 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature ----
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in -----
relation to disability
10 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 25000/-
11 INTEREST AWARDED 9%
12 Total amount of interest Rs.4,318/-
13 Total amount including interest Rs.29,318/-
14 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Entire amount is
to the claimant(s) released to the
petitioner Sushma
15 Next date for compliance of the award. 15.05.2021
FORM IV-B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
INJURY OF NAEEM TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 28.09.2021
2. Name of the injured : Mohd. Naeem
3. Age of the injured: 27 years
4. Nature of injury : Simple MACT No.126/2022 31/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
Computation of Compensation S. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal 7 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment ---
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance & ---
attendant
iii Loss of earning capacity ----
iv Loss of Income ----
v Any other loss which may require any special ----
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
8 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock -----
ii Pain and suffering 25000/-
iii Loss of amenities of life & Marriage ---
prospects
iv Loss of Education -----
v Loss of marriage prospects -----
vi Compensation on account of permanent ----
disability
9 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature ----
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in -----
relation to disability
10 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 25000/-
11 INTEREST AWARDED 9%
12 Total amount of interest Rs.4,318/-
13 Total amount including interest Rs.29,318/-
14 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Entire amount is
to the claimant(s) released to the
petitioner Naeem
15 Next date for compliance of the award. 15.05.2021
MACT No.126/2022 32/35
Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
FORM IV-B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1) Date of accident : 28.09.2021
2) Name of the injured : Jyoti
3) Age of the injured: 25 years
4) Nature of injury : Grievous Computation of Compensation S. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal 1 Pecuniary Loss :
I Expenditure on treatment ---
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and ---
attendant
iii Loss of earning capacity -----
iv Loss of Income ---
v Any other loss which may require any special -----
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
2 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock -------
ii Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
iii Loss of amenities -----
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects -----
v Loss of marriage prospects -----
vi Compensation on account of permanent -----
disability
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature -----
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in -----
MACT No.126/2022 33/35
Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
relation to disability
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1,00,000/-
5 INTEREST AWARDED 9%
6 Total amount of interest Rs.17,275/-
7 Total amount including interest Rs.1,17,275/-
8 Award amount released Rs.1,17,275/-
9 Award amount kept in FDRs ----
10 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Entire amount be
to the claimant(s) released to the
petitioner Jyoti
11 Next date for compliance of the award. 15.05.2024
FORM IV-B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
INJURY CASE OF RAGINI TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1) Date of accident : 28.09.2021
2) Name of the injured : Ragini
3) Age of the injured: 26 years
4) Nature of injury : Grievous
5) Disability: Yes..6% physical impairment in right lower limb Computation of Compensation S. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal 1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Rs.86849/-
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs.30,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of earning capacity -
iv Loss of Income Rs.66861/-
v Any other loss which may require any special ----
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of MACT No.126/2022 34/35 Jyoti and ors. vs. Sonu Kumar and ors.
his life.
2 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock ---
ii Pain and suffering Rs.70,000/-
iii Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/-
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects -----
v Loss of marriage prospects -----
vi Future Loss of income due to disability Rs.2,02,182/-
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature ---
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in ---
relation to disability
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.5,05,892
5 INTEREST AWARDED 9%
6 Total amount of interest Rs.87,392/-
7 Total amount including interest Rs.5,93,284/-
8 Award amount released Rs.5,93,284/-
9 Award amount kept in FDRs --
10 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Entire amount be
to the claimant(s) released to the
injured Ragini
11 Next date for compliance of the award. 15.05.2024
Pronounced in the open court
on 26th MARCH 2024
(SUDESH KUMAR-II)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
MACT No.126/2022 35/35