Delhi District Court
Mahesh & Ors. vs . Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.1 /74 on 30 January, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA:
ADJ-1+ PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT: NORTH WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
UID No./CNR No. DLNW01-000230-2011
MACT CASE No. 449710/16 (DAR petition)
[old case:- More than 10 years old]
In Re :
1. Sh. Mahesh, (Injured)
S/o Sh. Chotte Lal,
R/o F-377, J. J. Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi
2. Sh. Rahul Kumar (Injured)
Sh. Vinod Kumar,
R/o B-37, J. J. Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi-110034.
3. Sh. Rohit, (Injured)
S/o Nand Kishore,
R/o G-580, J. J. Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
4. Sh. Vinod, (Injured)
S/o Sh. Ganpat Rai,
R/o B-246,
Lal Bagh, Azad Pur, Delhi
5. Sh. Satish @ Rahul (Injured)
S/o Sh. Rakesh,
R/o G-726, Shakurpur,
Delhi.
AND
UID No./CNR No.DLNW01-004917-2019
MACT No. 290/19
1. Sh. Mahesh, (Injured)
S/o Sh. Chaty Lal,
R/o F-377, J. J. Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18
Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.1 /74
AND
UID No./CNR No.DLNW01-010636-2018
MACT No. 602/18 (Injured)
Sh. Rahul@ Satish
S/o Sh. Vinod
R/o D-250, Shakurpur Colony,
Delhi-110034.
AND
UID No./CNR No.DLNW01-004915-2019
MACT No. 289/19
Sh. Rohit, (Injured)
S/o Nand Kishore,
R/o G-580, J. J. Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
AND
UID No./CNR No. DLNW01-004617-2019
MACT No. 264/19
Sh. Vinod, (Injured)
S/o Sh. Ganpat Rai,
R/o B-246,
Lal Bagh, Azad Pur, Delhi
AND
UID No./CNR No. DLNW01-010637-2018
MACT No. 603/18
Sh. Rahul @ Satish (Injured)
S/o Sh. Rakesh,
R/o G-726, Shakurpur,
Delhi. ....... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Lal Baksh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Vijay Bahadur Singh
R/o Village Rusoolpur,
Distt. Rai Bareily, U.P.
2. Sh. Manoj Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Ram Pratp Singh
R/o B-5/4, Mayur Appartments
Sec-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18
Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.2 /74
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Okhla Phase-II , New Delhi.
.......... Respondents
Date of institution of the DAR MACT No. 449710-16 : 25.01.2011 Date of institution of claim petitions : 17.09.2018 MACT No. 603/18 and 602/18 Date of institution of claim petition No. 289/19 : 08.05.2019 Date of institution of claim petition No. 290/19 : 16.05.2019 First date before this court : 17.09.2018 Date of Arguments : 27.01.2021 Date of Decision : 30.01.2021 APPEARANCE (s): Sh. Shashi Ranjan, Ld. Counsel for petitioner Injured Rohit and injured Mahesh.
Sh. Ram Kishan, Ld. Counsel for injured Vinod.
Sh. Mandeep Bansal, Ld. Counsel for injured Rahul S/o Vinod.
Sh. Mahender Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for petitioner Rahul @ @ Satish, S/o Sh. Rakesh.
Sh. Gaurav Garg, Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2.
Sh. A. K. Singh, Ld. Counsel for insurance Co.
FORM - V COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (EFFECTIVE W.E.F. 01.01.2019) TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS.
1. Date of the accident 26.03.2017
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 25.02.2011 investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.3 /74
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 25.02.2011 investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 __ Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 25.02.2011 Information Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 25.02.2011 Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s). 25.02.2011
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR __ removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the insurance Company. Not mentioned.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Not mentioned. Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Yes Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted No the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the insurance company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or No. No action warranted deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.4 /74
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the No legal offer filed. offer of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the Award.
30.01.2021.
19. Whether the award was passed with the No consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to Yes open saving bank account(s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open saving bank account (s) on 06.05.2019 near his place of residence and produce and PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the on 13.08.2019 direction to the bank not issue any and cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) on 08.12.2020 and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced Statement regarding the passbook of their saving bank financial status of the account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card petitioner no. 2 Sh. and Aadhar Card?
Rahul Kumar and
petitioner no.5 Sh.
Satish @ Rahul
recorded on 27.11.2017.
Petitioner no.1, 3 and 4
did not file their requisite
documents for recording
financial status in terms
of clause 29 of MCTAP.
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above. Claimant(s).
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.5 /74
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC Code.
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes account(s) is near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at Yes the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number, MICR number, IFSC State Bank of India, Code, name and branch of the bank of the Rohini Courts Branch, Claims Tribunal in which the award Delhi. IFSC Code- amount is to be deposited/transferred. SBIN0010323.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.6 /74 PETITION UNDER SECTION 166 & 140 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION JUDGMENT / AWARD:-
1. By way of present common judgment/award, I shall conscientiously dispose of the DAR (Detailed Accidental Report) filed by the investigating agency in terms of MCTAP (Motor Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure) which has been treated as a claim petition U/s 166 (4) of M. V. Act, 1988 and also the petitions U/s 166 & 140 of M. V. Act, 1988 filed by all the five petitioners/injured persons against the respondents for grant of compensation. It is made specific that the determination is common uptil issue no.1, whereafter which it is specific to the injuries sustained by each petitioner.
2. The brief material facts relevant to decide the present claim petition as averred are that on the intervening night of 19.06.2010 and 20.06.2010, Mahesh (petitioner no.1), Rahul (petitioner no.2), Rohit (petitioner no.3), Vinod (petitioner no.4) and Rahul @ Satish (petitioner no.5) were travelling in TATA 407 (Tempo) bearing registration no. DL-1LF-2531 and were returning from Gurgoan (now Gurugram) to Naharpur Delhi, after completing the music programme of DJ when they reached near Sharda Niketan Road No.42, Deepali Chowk Red Light, one oil tanker bearing registration no HR-38H-9897 which was being driven by its driver/R-1 Sh. Lal Baksh in a rash and negligent manner came from front side and hit their vehicle. The vehicle was dragged and turned turtle on the divider. As a result of which, all the occupants of the tempo sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. The police authorities have registered a case against the respondent no. 1 for the alleged accident vide FIR No. 200/10, U/s 279/337IPC with P.S. Rani Bagh, Delhi, and chargesheet was filed u/s 279/337/338 IPC before Ld. M.M. after completion of investigation.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.7 /74
3. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner no.5 Rahul @ Satish sustained grievous injuries resulting into disablement to the extent of 100% blindness. Since, he lost his eyes in the accident in question, he was being represented through his father Rakesh. After the death of Sh. Rakesh an application U/o 32 rule 1 & 5 r/w Sec 151 CPC was made on behalf of the mother of injured for appointment to be his next guardian. The aforesaid application was also allowed. Subsequently, she also died and another application was made by Sh. Sandeep brother of injured Sh. Rahul @ Satish for appointment to be the next guardian of injured Rahul @ Satish. The said application was allowed vide order dated 13.08.2019 and Sh. Sandeep, brother of injured Rahul @ Satish was appointed as guardian ad-litem of petitioner.
4. R-1/driver did not file its WS/reply. R-2/owner on its part file its WS thereby taking preliminary objections regarding the petition to be bad for mis- joinder and non-joinder of the necessary party on account of the fact that the driver, owner and insurer of the occupants vehicle bearing no. DL-1LE-2531 being not impleaded as a necessary party. It has been further averred that the driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent and was driving the vehicle at the relevant date, time and place by following traffic rules and it was the occupants vehicle bearing no. DL-1LE-2531 which all of sudden came in front of the offending vehicle as the same was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. It has further been averred that R-1/driver of the offending vehicle tried its best to stop his vehicle but could not do so on account of bursting of pressure pipes in break line resulting into the accident. It is further averred that the averments made in the DAR/petitions filed by the injured are false and the claim raised by the petitioners are highly exaggerated which is not commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case. R-2 has claimed dismissal of the petition qua him on account of the aforesaid facts.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.8 /74
5. R-3 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. filed WS/replies and denied the contents made in the DAR/Claim petitions, where it has been contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid license at the time of the accident in question. It has also been averred that the offending vehicle was an oil tanker meant for carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature such as petroleum for which a separate endorsement on the DL as per rule is required and since same has not taken, R-3/insurance Co. is not liable to pay any compensation to the injured/petitioner. It has been admitted that the offending vehicle bearing no. HR-38H-9897 was insured with the R-3/insurance Co. vide policy bearing no. 2016792343001960 valid from 15.09.2009 to 14.09.2010.
6. On perusal of the pleadings and documents, the following issues were framed by the tribunal on 11.12.2012:-
ISSUES.
1. Whether on 20.06.2010 at about 03:00 a.m. at Red Light, Deepali Chowk, one tanker bearing registration no. HR-38H-
9897, being driven by Lal Baksh Singh rashly and negligently hit vehicle make TATA 407, bearing registration no. DL-1LFZ- 2531 and thereby caused injuries to the petitioners, who were travelling in TATA 407? OPP
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP.
3. Relief.
7. To substantiate their claims, Smt. Radha, mother of petitioner no.5 Rahul @ Satish has examined herself as PW-1. Petitioner no.2 Rahul Kumar and petitioner no. 4 Vinod S/o Ganpat have examined themselves as PW-2 and PW-4 respectively. Apart from these, petitioners have also examined Dr. Amreshwar Narayan as PW-3 and Dr. G. C. Verma as PW-4 (earlier at the time of evidence the witness was also recorded as PW-4) but to avoid confusion in MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.9 /74 the judgment the same shall be referred to as PW-4 A. Petitioner no.3 Rohit has examined himself as PW-1 in his separate claim petition bearing no. 289/19 again, to avoid confusion, the same shall be referred as PW-1A while petitioner no.1 Sh. Mahesh has not led any specific evidence but has adopted the evidence led in a lead MACT case No. 449710/16 (DAR case).
8. Respondent no. 1 Sh. Lal Baksh Singh examined himself as R1W1 and R-3/insurer of the offending vehicle has examined one Sh Parmod Sah, Legal Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. as R3W1.
9. Since, there was lot of confusion as to petitioner's names, counsels and evidence, record was put straight by the court vide its order dated 06.05.2019 where a chart was prepared and proceedings got concluded clearly.
10. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record including the pleadings and the documents. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the same. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 "Whether on 20.06.2010 at about 03:00 a.m. at Red Light, Deepali Chowk, one tanker bearing registration no. HR-38H-9897, being driven by Lal Baksh Singh rashly and negligently hit vehicle make TATA 407, bearing registration no. DL-1LFZ-2531 and thereby caused injuries to the petitioners, who were travelling in TATA 407?OPP
11. The onus to prove, the aforesaid issue was on petitioners. To prove the same, Smt. Radha, mother of petitioner no.5 Rahul @ Satish has examined herself as PW-1 by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A who in her testimony has deposed on the lines and averments made in the DAR/claim petitions. Petitioner no.2 Rahul Kumar, petitioner no.3 Rohit and petitioner no.4 who have examined themselves as PW-2, PW-1A ( in separate claim petition bearing no. 289/19) and MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.10 /74 PW-4 respectively have also deposed on the lines and averments in the DAR/claim petition. Though, petitioner Sh. Mahesh has not led any specific evidence but has adopted the evidence led by the petitioners in lead MACT Case No. 449710/16 (DAR file).
12. PW-1 (petitioner Smt. Radha, mother of injured/petitioner Satish @ Rahul has relied upon the following documents: -
S. Description of documents Remarks
No.
1. Discharge summary for the period Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR)
25.06.2010 to 17.08.2010 of
Jaipur Golden Hospital
2. Discharge summary from Ex. PW-1/2
13.11.2010 to 22.11.2010
3. Disability certificate of Satish @ Ex. Pw-1/3 (colly.)
Rahul
4. 128 Prescriptions in original Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR)
5. Copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner Ex. PW-1/4 A (OSR)
satsih @ Rahul
6. Copy of voter I card Ex. PW-1/5
7. Copy of Voter I card of Sh. Rakesh Ex. PW-1/6
8. Copy of voiter I card of injured Ex. PW-1/7
Satish @ Rahul
9. Photocopy of secondary school Ex. PW-1/8
examinations
10. OPD cards Ex. PW-1/9 to Ex.
PW-1/28
11. X Ray reports, diagnostic report Ex. PW-1/29 to Ex.
and medical record of Satish @ PW-46
Rahul
12. Original medical bills and receipts Ex. P1X1 (B1 to
of injured B173)
13. DAR Ex. PX
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.11 /74
13. PW-2 (petitioner Rahul Kumar, S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar) has relied upon the following documents: -
S. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of medical bills, prescription, Ex. PW-2/A (OSR)
discharge summary slip, verified by
the IO
2. Copy of MLC is marked Mark-A
3. The disability certificate Ex. PW-2/B (colly.)
4. Copy of FIR verified by the IO Ex. PW-2/C (OSR)
14. PW-4 (petitioner Vinod S/o Sh. Ganpat Rai) has relied upon the following documents: -
S. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. DAR Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR)
2. MLC No 4867/10 dated 20.06.2010 Ex. PW-4/2
3. Disability certificate Ex. PW-4/3
15. PW-1/A (petitioner Rohit, S/o Sh. Nand Kishore in MACT Case No. 289/19) has relied upon the following documents: -
S. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. DAR Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of Aadhar card Ex. PW-1/2
3. Copy of Voter ID card Ex. PW-1/3
4. Cop of PAN CARD Ex. PW-1/4
16. All the aforesaid witnesses were duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. During cross examination, PW-1 Smt. Radha (mother of injured/petitioner no.5 Rahul @ Satish) has deposed that she is not an eye witness of the accident in question. PW-2 Rahul Kumar in his cross examination has deposed that he was working with Beats DJ. He further deposed that he was sitting at the back side of the truck with goods. He further deposed that no one has asked him to sit on the backside of the truck. He has MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.12 /74 also deposed that he does not know whether the said accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver truck in which he was travelling. He further deposed that he was awake at the time of the accident. PW-1 A (in case MACT No.289/19) in his cross examination has deposed that on the day of the accident that he was sitting at the back side of the tempo made TATA 407 bearing no. DL- 1LE-2531 with musical instruments. He further deposed that he was taken to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital directly from the site of the accident. He has admitted that he was not aware about the state/condition of the driver of the vehicle in which he was sitting whether he was fully awaken. He voluntarily deposed he was not aware as he was sitting on the instrument on the back side. He has also deposed that he cannot admit or deny whether the driver of the tanker bearing no. HR-38H-9897 was driving his tanker in a careful manner. He again voluntarily deposed that the abovesaid tanker hit the tempo after it had crossed half of the road. He denied the suggestion that the tempo had not cross half of the road and all of sudden came out before the tanker. He denied their suggestion that the driver of the offending vehicle was not driving in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. The witness in his cross examination by the counsel for the R-3 has denied the suggestion that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the tempo bearing no. DL-1LE-2531.
17. In rebuttal, the respondent no.1 Sh. Lal Baksh driver of the offending vehicle examined himself (though no WS was filed by him) as R1W1 by way of affidavit R1W1/A. In his testimony by way of affidavit he deposed that the driver of the tempo bearing no. DL-1LE-2531 was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and without observing any traffic rules while he was driving his vehicle by following the traffic rules. He further stated that the driver of the tempo suddenly came in front of his truck and he tried all his best to stop MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.13 /74 his vehicle but due to sudden bursting of the pressure pipe of brake line, all his efforts to stop his vehicle failed and the accident has occurred. He has also deposed that he was holding a valid DL to drive his vehicle at the time of the accident in question.
18. He was duly cross examined by Sh. Mahender Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner where he admitted that the criminal case with respect to the alleged accident is pending in the court of Ld. M. M. and no final judgment has been given in that case. He further deposed that he did not make any complaint before any superior authorities with regard to the alleged accident. He further deposed that he did not file any criminal complaint against the driver of TATA 407 bearing no. DL-1LE-2531. He denied that the accident in question has taken place due to his negligence. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for insurance company, he deposed that the offending vehicle was a petroleum tanker. He voluntarily deposed that at the relevant time, it was empty and he was the driver of the said tanker. He deposed that he was coming with empty tanker from Mathura to Delhi. He has denied that he always used to drive the said tanker. He has admitted that his DL is for transport vehicle and is being renewed after every three years.
19. Adverting to the nature of proceedings before tribunal, It has to be borne in mind that Motor Vehicles Act does not stipulate holdings a trial for petition preferred under section 166 of the Act. Under Section 168 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal holds an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just, Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. In State of Mysore Vs. S.S Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR
943. Hon'ble Apex court held:-
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.14 /74 " that tribunal exercising Quasi-Judicial function are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can unlike courts, obtain all information for the points under the inquiry from all sources and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in Courts"
20. In Bimla Devi and Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, Supreme Court held that " 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 an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. 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."
21. In N.K V. Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumal Ammal, AIR 1980 SC 1354 Supreme Court has reminded the Claim Tribunals stating as follows:
"Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially, when truck and bus driver operate nocturnally. This pro-verbial recklessness often persuades the Courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other case, to draw an initial presumption in several cases bases on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitar. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here and some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes".
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.15 /74
22. It is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 200/10, U/s 279/337 IPC, PS Rani Bagh, Delhi with regard to the accident in question has been registered against the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle. Copy of the said FIR as also the copy of charge sheet arising out of the said FIR (which forms part of DAR Ex. PW-4/1), would show that FIR was registered promptly on the date of the accident itself. It is also not under dispute that the offending vehicle bearing no. HR-38H-9897 was being driven by R-1 at the time of the accident as is clear from the endorsement/statement dated 25.06.2010 of the owner (R-2) on the notice under section 133 M. V. Act given by the IO (Part of DAR Ex. PW- 4/1) and the same was owned by R-2 as per registration certificate (Part of DAR).
23. Now, adverting to the question of rash and negligent driving, the IO of the case has prepared the site plan (part of DAR Ex. PW-4/1) where the alleged accident has taken place. The site plan shows the A Mark where the accident has taken place and Mark B has been shown as a place where the tempo in which the petitioners were travelling was found. Mark-C has been shown to be the place where the offending truck bearing registration no. HR- 38H-9897 has stopped after the accident. The site plan further shows the Mark- D including dots shows the way from Madhuban Chowk to Peeragarhi and Mark- E including dots shows the way from Deepali Chowk to Rohini. From the site plan, it has been duly proved that the tempo had crossed the half of the road and the offending truck has hit the tempo. The mechanical inspections (which forms part of DAR Ex. PW-4/1) of the both the vehicles were also carried out by IO. As per the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle, the same is found to have been damaged from front side as the front cabin including the head lights, wind screen, dash board were damaged. Even, the chassis of the offending truck was also bent. On the other hand as per the mechanical MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.16 /74 inspection of the tempo bearing no. DL-1LE-2531 wherein the petitioners were travelling is found to have been damaged from its middle side as the rear portion of the driver's cabin, driver door window including wind screen as also the diesel tank were found damaged which leads to natural inference that it was the offending vehicle that hit the occupants tempo and dragged it in the rash and negligent manner. Nothing contrary to the aforesaid has duly been shown on record by respondent
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the offending vehicle bearing no. HR-38H-9897 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 is liable for the alleged accident in question that led to injuries being sustained by petitioners/injured persons. The injuries sustained by the petitioners relates to the accident in question vide their testimonies Ex. PW-1/A, Ex. PW-2/A Ex. PW-4/A and PW-1/A (in MACT Case No.289/19) and medical treatment records including MLC's respectively.
25. Thus, issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.2 "Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP"
26. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. Rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal stricto sensu.
27. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" in injury cases has been laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.17 /74 in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors that: -
" The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages".
28. It has been further held by the Hon'ble High Court that:
"the general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries".
29. The Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating the principle of just compensation has held the same to be a challange a warranting sensitive as well as dispassionate exercise holding that neither the sentiments nor emotions may play a role but the fundamental principle of just compensation needs to be inhered. It has been further held that the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
30. The petitioners namely Mahesh, Rahul Kumar, Rohit, Vinod and Satish @ Rahul have suffered injuries on account of the alleged accident which has adversely affected not only their day to day avocation but also loss of MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.18 /74 general amenities and even have suffered long pain and sufferings. As such they are entitled to be restituted by way of just and reasonable compensation which under the various heads is determined as under:-
(A) COMPENSATION QUA PETITIONER No. 1 MAHESH MEDICAL EXPENSES
31. Though, petitioner has not led any specific evidence but has adopted the evidence led by petitioners in a lead DAR case bearing MACT No. 449710/16. The MLC of petitioner/injured Mahesh shows that he had sustained simple injuries in the accident. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Mahesh during arguments has submitted that the petitioner Mahesh had sustained the simple injuries and was firstly taken to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Delhi and then to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini, Delhi. He further submitted that the injured was discharged from the hospital on the very same day. In the absence of any medical bills, no amount of compensation can be awarded under the head medical expenses.
LOSS OF INCOME
32. Petitioner namely Mahesh has failed to prove his income and even has failed to prove his educational qualifications. The MLC of the petitioner would show that he sustained the simple injuries in the accident and there is no admission of the injured in the hospital. The petitioner Mahesh during investigation has given a statement to the IO (part of Dar Ex. PW-4/1) that he could not go to work for about 15 days which has not been controverted. Considering his absence of qualification and minimum wages of unskilled worker @ 5278/- per month in Delhi, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 2639/- (Rupees Two Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Nine) only in favour of petitioner Mahesh under the head Loss of Income.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.19 /74 PAIN AND SUFFERING
33. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." Passed in appeal MAC. APP 517/2010 decided on 05.07.2012, has held as under:-
"It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
34. The MLC of petitioner Mahesh would show that he had suffered simple injuries. Thus, he would have undergone sufficient physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Considering the MLC which shows the nature of injuries suffered by injured Sh. Mahesh to be simple, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) Only towards pain and suffering to the petitioner/injured.
SPECIAL DIET & NUTRITON
35. In the present claim petition, there are sufficient material on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered simple injuries. The petitioner has deposed that he had spent money towards special diet and nutrition but has failed to place on record any receipts. The petitioner without doubt needed sufficient nutrition in order to ensure his good health and fast recovery. Though, the petitioner has failed to file any receipt thereto. Considering, the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner must have taken special protein rich diet at least of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) Only is awarded under the head of Special diet and nutrition.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.20 /74 CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT CHARGES
36. The petitioner has claimed that he had spent money for visit to the hospital as taxi fare and towards attendant charges. Although, he has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record to show that how much amount had he spent on account of conveyance and attendant. Taking into account the medico legal report of petitioner, he might have incurred expenses towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular checkup and follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) Only for conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) Only for attendant charges.
37. Thus, the total compensation qua petitioner Mahesh is assessed as under:-
1. Medical expense Nil
2. Loss to Income Rs. 2639/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/-
4. Conveyance, Attendant charges and Rs. 5,000/-+ Rs. 2500/-
special diet + 10,000/-= 17,500/-
Total Rs. 35,139/-
or say Rs. 35,200/-
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.21 /74 (B) COMPENSATION QUA PETITIONER No. 2 RAHUL KUMAR MEDICAL EXPENSES
38. PW-2 (Petitioner no.2 Sh. Rahul S/o Sh. Vinod) himself, has deposed in his testimony that after the accident he was taken to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital and thereafter removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he was treated by the doctors of the said hospital. He was medically examined by the doctors of the Dr. B.S.A. Hospital vide MLC dated 20.06.2010 (Ex. PW-2/B). He further deposed that due to forceful impact he fell down on road and sustained grievous injuries. He further deposed that he got relieved from the Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi and got admitted to Indian Hospital. He claimed that he had spent more than Rs. 2,50,000/- as expenses towards medicines, surgery, special diet, transportation attendant etc. He further deposed that that the treatment is still continuing. He proved on record the medical bills as Ex. PW- 2/A. PW-2 further deposed that he sustained grievous injuries due to the accident which has resulted into locomotor disability to the extent of 24% in relation to spine. He proved on record disability certificate PW-2/D. Further, as per the testimony of the PW-2 and the medical record, it has been revealed that the backbone of the petitioner Rahul got disfigured due to the accident and as such he is not able to sit on chair or bed for long time. The petitioner Mahesh has claimed Rs. 2,15,000/- as compensation being spent towards medical expenses. The petitioner has placed on record the medical bills [Ex. PW-2/A (colly.)] of Rs. 1,25,000/- only. Thus, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Five Thousand) only to the petitioner Rahul, S/o Sh. Vinod under the head Medical expenses.
LOSS OF INCOME
39. Petitioner Sh. Rahul S/o Sh. Vinod, PW-2 has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that he was working as a MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.22 /74 labourer with the Beats Entertainment Co. and was earning Rs. 6,500/- per month. He has further deposed that he was working very hard with full devotion and has been badly affected due to the accident and his life of efficient working has been shorten due to permanent disability. He has further deposed that due to accident and injuries sustained in the accident, he was compelled to leave his job and no one is ready to give work. The medical records of the injured proved that he was admitted in the hospital from 20.06.2010 to 26.06.2010 and 03.07.2010 to 31.07.2010. To prove the disability, the petitioner has examined Dr. G. C. Verma, MS Ortho, Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, as PW-4 (now PW-5), who in his testimony that he has examined the petitioner with Dr. J. S. Martolia. He has deposed that the petitioner is having permanent disability to the extent of 24% in relation to spine and as per the certificate, the disability is locomotor, by this fact, the petitioner can not lift heavy weight. Further deposed that the petitioner may also face problem lying on Supine position. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal is left with no other yardstick to determine the monthly income of the petitioner except, minimum wages basis and accordingly consider the income of petitioner to be Rs. 5,278/- (minimum wages of unskilled person prevailing at the time of accident) per month.
40. Taking into account the testimony of the petitioner, entire medical records including hospitalization and Medico Legal Report, which are sufficient to prove that the petitioner might have not performed his job at least for six months due to the accident in question, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 31,668/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight) only (Rs. 5278X6 month) to the petitioner Rahul S/o Sh. Vinod, under this head.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.23 /74 PAIN AND SUFFERING
41. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." Passed in appeal MAC. APP 517/2010 decided on 05.07.2012, has held as under:-
"It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
42. PW-2, petitioner himself has deposed in his testimony by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A that he had sustained grievous injuries consequent to disablement due to the accident in question and his ocular testimony is duly corroborated by medical records. Said treatment record would show that he had suffered grievous injuries. Thus, he would have undergone sufficient physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Considering the medical records and the nature of injuries suffered by injured/petitioner, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Only towards pain and suffering to the petitioner/injured.
SPECIAL DIET & NUTRITON
43. In the present claim petition, there are sufficient material on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries due to the accident. The petitioner has deposed that he had spent money for special diet and nutrition but has failed to place on record any receipts. The petitioner without doubt needed sufficient nutrition in order to ensure his good health and healing. Though, the petitioner has failed to file any receipt thereto. Considering, the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner must have taken MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.24 /74 special protein rich diet. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) Only is awarded under the head of Special diet and nutrition.
CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT CHARGES
44. The petitioner has deposed in his testimony that after being discharged from the hospital, he visited the hospital for follow up in OPD on several occasions for to and fro journey. The petitioner has not specifically mentioned that as to how many times he visited to the hospital for follow up in OPD. Although, he has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record to show that how much amount had he spent on account of conveyance and attendant but taking into account the condition of the petitioner as well as the medical records, he might have incurred expenses towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular checkup and follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) Only for conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand) Only (Rs. 4,000/- per month at least for three months) for attendant charges.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES OF LIFE
45. As discussed, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. He is shown to have sustained injuries in spine (backbone) resulted into a disability to the extent of 24% in relation to spine which has been duly proved by PW-5 Dr. G. C. Verma, M. S. Ortho Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Delhi who has deposed that he has examined the petitioner along-with Dr. J. S. Martolia. He has deposed that the petitioner is MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.25 /74 having permanent disability to the extent of 24% in relation to spine and as per the certificate (Ex. PW-2/B), the disability is locomotor, by this fact, the petitioner can not lift heavy weight. The petitioner may also face problem lying on Supine position. All this proves that the petitioner would not have been able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him and his continued treatment for considerable period and hospitalization, this tribunal awards Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME/EARNING CAPACITY
46. As already discussed, the petitioner is shown to have sustained grievous injuries in spine (backbone) resulted into a disability to the extent of 24% in relation to spine which has been duly proved by PW-5 Dr. G. C. Verma, M. S. Ortho Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Delhi. He has deposed that the petitioner is having permanent disability to the extent of 24% in relation to spine and as per the certificate (Ex. PW-2/B), the disability is locomotor. The said disability certificate was prepared on the directions of this Tribunal and was not controverted. The age of the petitioner at the time of the accident was admittedly 19 years as per the MLC Ex. PW-2/B. Having regard to the percentage of loss of earning capacity in the light of injuries sustained by the petitioner Rahul S/o Vinod which has resulted into locomotor disablement to the extent of 24% in relation to spine which has been disfigured and as argued by counsel Sh. Bansal has actually turned invert due to accident, his functional disability is taken as 100% to the total disability of 24% which comes out to be 24% in relation to whole body. Reliance placed on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. The monthly income of the petitioner/injured at the time of the accident was Rs. 5,278/- per month which annually comes to Rs. 63,336/-
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.26 /74 Thus, the loss of future earning per annum comes to Rs. 15,200.64p (24% of the annual income).
The multiplier applicable with reference to the age of petitioner is 18 as per 'Sarla Verma case' as the petitioner was aged about 19 years at the time of accident.
Thus, the total loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability is computed as Rs. 2,73,611.52 (Rs.15,200.64 X18). Therefore, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 2,73,611.52 (Rupees Two Lac Seventy Three Thousand Six Hundred Eleven and Fifty Two Paise) on account of loss of future income on account of disability.
MARRIAGE PROSPECTS
47. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 24% disability as evident from disability certificate No. 220, dated 03.09.2011 of Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, vide disability certificate Ex. PW-2/B. Though, the said disability certificate has been duly proved by PW-5 Dr. G. C. Verma, M. S. Ortho Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Delhi. He has deposed that the petitioner is having permanent disability to the extent of 24% in relation to spine and as per the certificate (Ex. PW-2/B), the disability is locomotor, by this fact, the petitioner can not lift heavy weight. Due to injuries sustained by the petitioner his spine has been completely turned into curve shape, as such got disfigured from its normal shape. Thus, the marriage prospects of the petitioner have also been adversely affected due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident in question. In these circumstances, this tribunal awards Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Only to the petitioner under the head of marriage prospects.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.27 /74 DISFIGUREMENT
48. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 24% disability as evident from disability certificate No. 220, dated 03.09.2011 of Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, vide disability certificate Ex. PW-2/B. Though, the said disability certificate has been duly proved by PW-5 Dr. G. C. Verma, M. S. Ortho Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Delhi who has deposed that he has examined the petitioner with Dr. J. S. Martolia. He has deposed that the petitioner is having permanent disability to the extent of 24% in relation to spine and as per the certificate (Ex. PW-2/B), the disability is locomotor, by this fact, the petitioner can not lift heavy weight. Due to injuries sustained by the petitioner his spine has been completely turned into curve shape, as such got disfigured from its normal shape. In these circumstances, this tribunal awards Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Only to the petitioner under the head of disfigurement prospects.
49. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical expenses Rs.1,25,000/-
2. Loss of income/leaves Rs.31,668/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs.50,000/- enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance Attendant charges and Rs.15,000/-+ Rs.12,000/- + special diet Rs.20,000/-
= Rs.47,000/-
6. Loss of future income Rs. 2,73,611.52
7. Loss of Marriage prospects Rs. 50,000/-
8. Disfigurement Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs. 6,77,279.52
Round of/or say Rs. 6,77,300/-
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.28 /74 (C) COMPENSATION QUA PETITIONER No. 3 ROHIT S/O NAND KISHORE MEDICAL EXPENSES
50. PW-1 (Petitioner no.3 Sh. Rohit, S/o Sh. Nand Kishore) himself in case MACT No. 289/19 has deposed in his testimony that after the accident he was taken to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and thereafter removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he was treated by the doctors of the said hospital. He was medically examined by the doctors of the Dr. B.S.A. Hospital vide MLC dated 20.06.2010 (part of DAR Ex. PW-1/1) Colly which proves that the petitioner/injured Rohit S/o Sh. Nand Kishore sustained grievous injuries due to the accident. Further, the medical record of the injured shows his hospitalization for the period 20.06.2010 to 24.06.2010. He claimed that he may be awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the head medical expenses as he had spent more than Rs. 3,00,000/- towards medical expenses. The petitioner Rohit S/o Sh. Nand Kishore has placed on record the medical bills of Rs. 50,801/- which have duly verified by the Investigating Officer. Thus, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 50,801/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred One) only to the petitioner Rohit S/o Sh. Nand Kishore under the head Medical expenses.
LOSS OF INCOME
51. Petitioner Sh. Rohit S/o Sh. Nand Kishore, PW-1A ( in case MACT No. 289/19) has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that he was working as with DJ Sound Group at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. He further deposed that due to the alleged accident, the working capacity of the petitioner has been reduced as he sustained grievous injuries due to the accident which has been duly proved by his MLC. The medical records of the injured proved that he was admitted in the hospital from 20.06.2010 to 24.06.2010. The petitioner has failed to prove his empoyment or even he has not filed any statement of account/ITR's to prove his MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.29 /74 income. Further, the petitioner has not placed on record any educational document. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal is left with no other yardstick to determine the monthly income of the petitioner except, minimum wages basis and accordingly consider the income of petitioner to be Rs. 5,278/- (minimum wages of unskilled person prevailing at the time of accident) per month.
52. Taking into account the testimony of the petitioner, entire medical records including hospitalization and Medico Legal Report, which are sufficient to prove that the petitioner might have not performed his job at least for three months due to the accident in question. Thus, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 15,834/- (Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Four) (Rs. 5278X3 month) to the petitioner Rohit S/o Sh. Nand Kishore.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
53. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." Passed in appeal MAC. APP 517/2010 decided on 05.07.2012, has held as under:-
"It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
54. PW-1, petitioner himself has deposed in his testimony by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A that he had sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in question and his ocular testimony is duly corroborated by medical records. Said treatment record would show that he had suffered grievous injuries. Thus, MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.30 /74 he would have undergone sufficient physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Considering the medical records and the nature of injuries suffered by injured/petitioner, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) Only towards pain and suffering to the petitioner/injured.
SPECIAL DIET & NUTRITON
55. In the present claim petition, there are sufficient material on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries due to the accident. The petitioner has deposed that he had spent money for special diet and nutrition but has failed to place on record any receipts. The petitioner without doubt needed sufficient nutrition in order to ensure his good health and healing. Though, the petitioner has failed to file any receipt thereto. Considering, the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner must have taken special protein rich diet. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) Only is awarded under the head of Special diet and nutrition.
CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT CHARGES
56. The petitioner has deposed in his testimony that after being discharged from the hospital, he visited the hospital for follow up in OPD on several occasions for to and fro journey. The petitioner has not specifically mentioned that as to how many times he visited to the hospital for follow up in OPD. Although, he has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record to show that how much amount had he spent on account of conveyance and attendant but taking into account the condition of the petitioner as well as the medical records, he might have incurred expenses towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular checkup and follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.31 /74 definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) Only for conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) Only (Rs. 4,000/- per month at least for two months) for attendant charges.
57. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical expenses Rs. 50,801/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 15,834/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
4. Conveyance Attendant charges and Rs.10,000/-+ special diet Rs.8,000/- + Rs.15,000/-
= Rs.33,000/-
Total Rs. 1,29,635/-
Or say (rounded off) Rs. 1,29,700/-
(D) COMPENSATION QUA PETITIONER No. 4 VINOD KUMAR, S/O GANPAT RAI MEDICAL EXPENSES
58. PW-4 (Petitioner no.4 Sh. Vinod Kumar, S/o Sh. Ganpat Rai) himself has deposed in his testimony that after the accident he was taken to Dr. B.S.A. MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.32 /74 Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and thereafter removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he was treated by the doctors of the said hospital. He was medically examined by the doctors of the Dr. B.S.A. Hospital vide MLC dated 20.06.2010 (Ex. PW- 4/2) Colly which proves that the petitioner/injured Vinod S/o Sh. Ganpat Rai sustained grievous injuries due to the accident. The petitioner has further deposed that he had incurred more than Rs.2,50,000/- including the expenses towards treatment. The petitioner has not placed on record any medical bills which may show that how much amount he had actually spent towards his treatment. In the absence of the medical bills, no amount can be awarded under the head of Medical Expenses. Thus, no amount of compensation is awarded under the head Medical expenses.
LOSS OF INCOME
59. Petitioner Sh. Vinod S/o Sh. Ganpat, PW-4 has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW4/A) that he was working with M/s. Beats International and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. He further deposed that due to the alleged accident, the working capacity of the petitioner has been reduced as he sustained grievous injuries due to the accident which has been duly proved by his MLC. The petitioner has failed to prove his employment or even he has not filed any statement of account/ITR's to prove his income. Further, the petitioner has not placed on record any educational document. The petitioner has even failed to prove his hospitalization in the hospital despite claim that he was admitted for 3 days. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal is left with no other yardstick to determine the monthly income of the petitioner except, minimum wages basis and accordingly consider the income of petitioner to be Rs. 5,278/- (minimum wages of unskilled person prevailing at the time of accident) per month.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.33 /74
60. Taking into account the testimony of the petitioner, entire medical records including hospitalization and Medico Legal Report, which are sufficient to prove that the petitioner might have not performed his job at least for four months due to the accident in question. Thus, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 21,112/- (Twenty One Thousand One Hundred Twelve) (Rs. 5278X4 month) to the petitioner Vinod, S/o Sh. Ganpat Rai under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
61. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." Passed in appeal MAC. APP 517/2010 decided on 05.07.2012, has held as under:-
"It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
62. PW-4, petitioner himself has deposed in his testimony by way of affidavit Ex. PW-4/A that he had sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in question and his ocular testimony is duly corroborated by medical records. Said treatment record would show that he had suffered grievous injuries. Thus, he would have undergone sufficient physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Considering the medical records and the nature of injuries suffered by injured/petitioner, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) Only towards pain and suffering to the petitioner/injured.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.34 /74 SPECIAL DIET & NUTRITON
63. In the present claim petition, there are sufficient material on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries due to the accident. The petitioner has deposed that he had spent money for special diet and nutrition but has failed to place on record any receipts. The petitioner without doubt needed sufficient nutrition in order to ensure his good health and healing. Though, the petitioner has failed to file any receipt thereto. Considering, the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner must have taken special protein rich diet. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) Only is awarded under the head of Special diet and nutrition.
CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT CHARGES
64. The petitioner has deposed in his testimony that after being discharged from the hospital, he visited the hospital for follow up in OPD on several occasions for to and fro journey. The petitioner has not specifically mentioned that as to how many times he visited to the hospital for follow up in OPD. Although, he has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record to show that how much amount had he spent on account of conveyance and attendant but taking into account the condition of the petitioner as well as the medical records, he might have incurred expenses towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular checkup and follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) Only for conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand) Only (Rs. 4,000/- per month at least for four months) for attendant charges.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.35 /74
65. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical expenses Nil
2. Loss of income Rs. 21,112/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
4. Conveyance Attendant charges and Rs.20,000/-+ special diet Rs.16,000/- + Rs.20,000/-
= Rs.56,000/-
Total Rs. 1,17,112/-
Or say (rounded off) Rs. 1,18,000/-
(E) COMPENSATION QUA PETITIONER No. 5 RAHUL @ Satish MEDICAL EXPENSES
66. PW-1 Smt. Radha, (mother Petitioner no.5 Sh. Rahul @ Satish) in her testimony has deposed that after the accident his son who is petitioner no.5 herein was initially taken to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Delhi and thereafter removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he was treated by the doctors of the said hospital. He was medically examined by the doctors vide MLC bearing no. 4865/10. She further deposed that his son was operated on 14.07.20211 and a feeding tube was inserted in his mouth to stomach for the purpose of feeding. She further deposed that his son was got fed for about six months. She has further deposed that her son suffered with sub durial hematoma and due to accident her son has lost his both eye sights and has became totally blind. Even he has the neurological disorder on account of the accident in question as he cannot think or act like a normal person. She has further deposed that her son remained in ICU for about 40 days. She further deposed that her son could not take food with his own hand for so many months. She further deposed that at present her son is completely blind as such he cannot do any profession. She MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.36 /74 further deposed that her son could not sit on bed for so many months and even passed stool and urine on the bed. She deposed that at the time of the accident, the age of her son was 19 years and was matriculate. She further deposed that her son was employed with Beats Entertainment. She has proved on record the hospitalization of her son in the hospital from 25.06.2010 to 17.08.2010 and 13.11.2010 to 22.11.2010 vide discharged summary Ex. PW-1/1 and Ex. PW-1/2 respectively. She further deposed that her son sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in question which has resulted into a disablement to the extent of 100% with respect to both the eyes as he suffered with cortical blindness. The said certificate has been duly proved by PW-3 Dr. Amreshwar Narayan, Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Delhi, who in his testimony has deposed that the petitioner was examined by Sr. Eye specialist on 14.10.2011. The doctor in his testimony has testified that the petitioner was examined by the doctor on the basis of the reports given by Gurunanak Eye Centre. He deposed that the disability certificate Ex. PW-3/A bears his signature at point B and signature of Dr. Amardev (now expired) at point A. He deposed that the petitioner can only feel that there is some light in any direction but cannot identity beyond that. He further deposed that most probably he cannot recognized the color. He further deposed that the petitioner is not able to see because he has suffered with 100% blindness. During cross examination, the witness has deposed that since, the petitioner was having head injuries, hence, his sight was adversely affected. The petitioner has placed on record the medical bills of Rs. 2,50,142/-. The bills have been duly verified by the IO. In these circumstances, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 2,50,142/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty Thousand One Hundred Forty Two) only to the petitioner under the head Medical Expenses.
LOSS OF INCOME
67. PW-1 mother of petitioner Sh. Rahul @ Satish, in her testimony has MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.37 /74 deposed that her son was 19 years at the time of the accident and was matriculate. She further deposed that her son Rahul was employed and earning Rs. 6000/- per month and he was also being paid a handsome tips in wedding ceremonies. She deposed that due to the accident in question he lost his job and even cannot do his job in future as he is completely blind. The medical records of the injured proves that he was admitted in the hospital from 25.06.2010 to 17.08.2010 and 13.11.2010 to 22.11.2010 (PW-1/1 and PW-1/2 respectively). The petitioner is having permanent disability to the extent of 100% in relation to both eyes as the petitioner has suffered with cortical blindness. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal is left with no other yardstick to determine the monthly income of the petitioner except, minimum wages basis and accordingly consider the income of petitioner to be Rs. 6448/- (minimum wages of matriculate person prevailing at the time of accident) per month.
68. Taking into account the testimony of mother of the petitioner including the testimony of PW-3 Dr. Amreshwar Narayan and entire medical records including hospitalization and Medico Legal Report, which are sufficient to prove that the petitioner might have not performed his job at least for one year due to the accident in question, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 77,376/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Six) (Rs. 6448X12 month) to the petitioner Rahul @ Satish.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
69. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." Passed in appeal MAC. APP 517/2010 decided on 05.07.2012, has held as under:-
"It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.38 /74 which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
70. PW-1, mother of petitioner has deposed in his testimony by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries consequent to disablement due to the accident in question and his ocular testimony is duly corroborated by medical records. Said treatment record would show that he had suffered grievous injuries. Thus, he would have undergone sufficient physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Considering the medical records and the nature of injuries suffered by injured/petitioner, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) Only towards pain and suffering to the petitioner/injured.
SPECIAL DIET & NUTRITON
71. In the present claim petition, there are sufficient material on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries due to the accident. The petitioner has deposed that he had spent money for special diet and nutrition but has failed to place on record any receipts. The petitioner without doubt needed sufficient nutrition in order to ensure his good health and healing. Though, the petitioner has failed to file any receipt thereto. Considering, the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner must have taken special protein rich diet. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Only is awarded under the head of Special diet and nutrition.
CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT CHARGES
72. PW-1 Smt. Radha, mother of petitioner has deposed in her testimony that after being discharged from the hospital, her son visited the MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.39 /74 hospital for follow up in OPD on several occasions for to and fro journey. The petitioner has not specifically mentioned that as to how many times he visited to the hospital for follow up in OPD. Although, he has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record to show that how much amount had he spent on account of conveyance and attendant but taking into account the condition of the petitioner as well as the medical records, he might have incurred expenses towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular checkup and follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Only for conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 48,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand) Only (Rs. 4,000/- per month at least for one year) for attendant charges.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES OF LIFE
73. As discussed, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. The hospitalization of the petitioner has also been duly proved by the discharge summaries Ex. PW-1/1 and Ex. PW-1/2 respectively. PW-1 Smt. Radha has deposed that her son was operated on 14.07.20211 and a feeding tube was inserted in his mouth to stomach for the purpose of feeding. She further deposed that his son was got fed for about six months. She has further deposed that her son suffered with sub durial hematoma and due to accident her son has lost his both eye sights and has became totally blind. Even he has the neurological disorder on account of the accident in question as he cannot think or act like a normal person. She has further deposed that her son remained in ICU for about 40 days. She further deposed that her son could not take food with his own hand for so many MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.40 /74 months. She further deposed that at present her son is completely blind as such he cannot do any profession. She further deposed that her son could not sit on bed for so many months and even passed stool and urine on the bed. She further deposed that her son sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in question which has resulted into a disablement to the extent of 100% with respect to both the eyes as he suffered with cortical blindness. The said certificate has been duly proved by the DR. Amreshwar Narayan, Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Delhi. The doctor in his testimony has testified that the petitioner was examined by the doctor on the basis of the reports given by Gurunanak Eye Centre. He deposed that the petitioner can only feel that there is some light in any direction but cannot identity beyond that. He further deposed that most probably he cannot recognized the color. He further deposed that the petitioner is not able to see because he has suffered with 100% blindness. All this proves that the petitioner would not have been able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him and his continued treatment for considerable period and hospitalization, this tribunal awards Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME/EARNING CAPACITY
74. As already discussed, the petitioner is shown to have sustained grievous injuries resulted into a disablement to the extent of 100% in relation to both eyes (cortical blindness) which has been duly proved by PW-3 Dr. Amesharwar Narayan, Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Delhi. The doctor in his testimony has already testified that the petitioner was duly examined on the basis of the reports given by Gurunanak Eye Centre and that he can only feel that there is some light in any direction but cannot identity beyond that and cannot recognize MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.41 /74 the color. He further deposed that the petitioner is not able to see because he has suffered with 100% blindness. The said disability certificate was prepared on the directions of this Tribunal and was not controverted. The age of the petitioner at the time of the accident was admittedly 18 years as per matriculation certificate. Having regard to the percentage of loss of earning capacity in the light of severe injuries sustained by the petitioner Rahul @ Satish which has not only resulted into 100% disability in relation to both eyes (cortical blindness) but also made him virtually incapacitated in all respects due to accident, his functional disability is taken as 100% to the total disability of 100% which comes out to be 100% in relation to whole body. Reliance placed on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. The monthly income of the petitioner/injured at the time of the accident was Rs. 6448/- per month which annually comes to Rs. 77,376/-
Thus, the loss of future earning per annum comes to Rs. 77,376/- (100% of the annual income).
The multiplier applicable with reference to the age of petitioner is 18 as per 'Sarla Verma case' as the petitioner was aged about 18 years at the time of accident.
Thus, the total loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability is computed as Rs. 13,92,768/- (Rs.77,376X18). Therefore, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 13,92,768/- on account of loss of future income on account of disability.
MARRIAGE PROSPECTS
75. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 100% disability in relation to both eye (cortical blindness) which has been duly proved by PW-3 Dr. Amesharwar Narayan, Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Delhi. He deposed that the petitioner can only feel that there is some light in any direction MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.42 /74 but cannot identity beyond that and cannot recognize the color. He further deposed that the petitioner is not able to see because he has suffered with 100% blindness. Due to injuries sustained by the petitioner, the entire career of the petitioner has been ransacked on account of the accident, which has severely affected his marriage prospects. In these circumstances, this tribunal awards Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) Only to the petitioner under the head of marriage prospects.
DISFIGUREMENT
76. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 100% disability in relation to both eye (cortical blindness). The medical witness in his testimony has duly testified that the petitioner can only feel that there is some light in any direction but cannot identity beyond that and he cannot recognize colors. He further deposed that the petitioner is not able to see because he has suffered with 100% blindness. Due to injuries sustained by the petitioner, the body of the petitioner got disfigured from loss of both eyes which is a very vital part of body. In these circumstances, this tribunal awards Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh) Only to the petitioner under the head of disfigurement.
77. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical expenses Rs. 2,50,142/-
2. Loss of income/leaves Rs. 77,376/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 1,00,000/-
enjoyment of life MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.43 /74
5. Conveyance Attendant charges and Rs. 50,000/-+ Rs.
special diet 48,000/- + Rs.
50,000/-
= Rs.1,48,000/-
6. Loss of future income Rs. 13,92,768/-
7. Loss of Marriage prospects Rs. 1,00,000/-
8. Disfigurement Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Rs. 22,68,286/-
Round of/or say Rs. 22,68,300/-
This issue is decided accordingly
LIABILITY
78. Now the liability is to be fixed as to which of the respondents shall pay the amount of compensation and to what extent. The offending vehicle was admittedly insured at the time of accident with respondent no. 3 i.e. Reliance General Insurance Co. vide policy bearing no. 2016792343001960 valid from 15.09.2009 to 14.09.2010. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3/insurer of the offending vehicle Mr. Singh has taken the defence that the respondent no. 1 was not authorized to drive the offending vehicle as the licence which he was holding was not containing the mandatory endorsement authorsing him to drive the hazardous goods vehicle. To prove its case, the R-3 examined Sh. Parmod Sah Legal Manager as R3W1 by way of affidavit Ex. R3W1/A, who in his testimony has deposed that the offending vehicle was insured vide policy no. 2016792343001960 valid from 15.09.2009 to 14.09.2010 in the name of R-2 vide R3W1/1. He further deposed that the R-1/driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid DL for petroleum tanker at the time of the accident and there was no endorsement on his DL to drive hazardous goods carrying vehicle.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.44 /74 He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners where he deposed that at the time of the accident, the oil tanker was filled as per the FIR. He denied the suggestion that at the time of the accident the oil tanker was empty. The said witness was not cross examined by R-1 or R-2.
79. Ld. Counsel for insurer has vehemently argued that Rule 9 sub rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993 provides that the Licencing Authority, on receipt of the application referred to in sub-rule (2), shall make an endorsement in the driving licence of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. He has further relied upon Sec. 14 (2) of the M. V. Act to indicate the currency of license. It is the contention of the insurer that the driving licence of respondent no. 1 was not neither contained such endorsement nor can be said to be authorized as per law since it was valid for a period of 3 years while a hazardous driving license can be renewed only for one year at a time claiming a breach of insurance policy, the respondent no. 3/insurer of the offending vehicle has prayed for complete exoneration of the insurer from liability or at least be given the recovery rights to recover the amount of compensation from respondent no. 1 & 2 jointly or severally.
80. Ld. Counsel for the insurer Sh. Singh has further relied upon the following pronouncement of law in support of his contention:-
1. MAC Appeal No. 798 of 2010: decided on 18.01.2016, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashpal Singh & Ors. of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
2. CMA (NPD) No. 10 of 2004: decided on 11.06.2009, Nagmani and Anr. Vs. Singaravelu & Anr. of in the High court of Judicature at Madras.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.45 /74
3. I (2017) ACC 836 (All.) Allahabad High Court, Vivek Kumar Birla, J., Gautam Filling Station Vs. Munnu Singh & Anr. FAFO No. 1898 of 2014- decided on 09.05.2016.
It has been argued that the aforesaid judgments are not only authoratitive but are also directly on the point in similar cases and should be applied to the facts of this case.
81. Since, the contention raised by the insurer shall have a direct legal effect on the question of liability the same is required to be adjudicated upon in the light of the evidence which has come on record.
82. Sec-9 of the Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment ) rules 1989 stipulates as under:-
Sec-9:- Educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods.-- [(1) one year from the date of commencement of Centre Motor Vehicles (Amendment) rules, 1993, any person driving a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life shall, in addition to being the holder of a driving license to drive a transport vehicle, also has the ability to read and write at least one Indian Language out of those [specified in the VIII schedule of the Constitution] and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of following syllabus and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods:-
(2) The holder of a driving license possessing the minimum educational qualification or the certificate referred to in sub-
rule (1), shall make an application in writing on a plain paper alongwith his driving license and the relevant certificate to the licensing authority in whose jurisdiction he resides for making necessary entries in his driving license and if the driving license is in Form 7, the application shall be accompanied by the fee as is referred to in SI. No. 8 of the Table to rule 32.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.46 /74 (3) The licensing authority, on receipt of the application referred to in sub-rule, (2) shall make an endorsement in the driving license of the applicant to the effect that he is authorized to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature nature to human life.
83. Further, Sec14 (2) of the M. V. Act read as under:-
14. Currency of licenses to drive motor vehicles, (1) XXXXXX (2) A driving license issued or renewed under this Act shall,__
(a) in the case of a license to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years:
Provided that in the case of license to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and
(b) in the case of any other license,__ (I) if the person obtaining the license, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof,__ (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (B)until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years.
Whichever is earlier;
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.47 /74
(ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (I) has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal:
Provided that every driving license shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry.
84. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions make it very clear that transport vehicle carrying goods which are either dangerous or hazardous in nature requires a mandatory endorsement on DL of the driver by the licensing authority upon requirement in compliance of other condition as laid down in Rule 9 of CMVR 1989 which can only be obtained after the license holder applies for the same and that to after completion of three days training programme. It is further worth noting that such license after endorsement shall remain effective only for a period of one year and subject to renewal from time to time. In simple words, the driver has to obtain license with such endorsement prior to driving the vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous material. It is not an option available to the driver to drive a vehicle which can carry dangerous or hazardous material only at the time of carrying such material without carrying the necessary endorsement as required under the CMV rules.
85. Applying the aforesaid to the facts of the present case, first and foremost, it is an admitted position by the driver Lal Baksh Singh during his cross examination as R1W1 that the DL issued him is for transport vehicle and same is being renewed after every three years. Secondly, it is also an admitted position from the records more particularly the RC of offending vehicle that the MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.48 /74 vehicle was an oil tanker with an unladen weight of 9000kg with front axle weight 6000Kg.
86. The judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for R-3/insurer are directly on the same point where the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing license to drive heavy goods vehicle without endorsement to drive vehicle carrying hazardous goods, whereas he was driving an oil tanker. The Hon'ble Madras High court in Nagmani (Supra) and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Gautam Filling (Supra) has held that the same amounts to violation of terms of insurance policy and held the owner liable to pay the compensation. Our own Hon'ble High Court in Ashpal Singh (Supra) has not only examined the entire legal position but has also held that the requirement of rule 9 of CMVR, 1989 are mandatory, a contravention of which would amount to violation of policy condition thereby giving recovery rights to the insurance company in similar case of fatality involving an oil Tanker. Nothing contrary to the aforesaid has been brought to the notice of the tribunal and the tribunal has no reason to deviate from the settled legal position in the light of facts discussed above.
87. Since, the insurer was valid and in subsistence, the respondent no. 3/insurance company shall be liable to indemnify the insured U/s 149 (1) of M. V. Act, 1988 for the same initially, and shall be liable to pay the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioners but shall have the recovery rights to recover the awarded amount from the respondent no. 1 & 2 jointly and severally.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
88. In view of the discussion and findings of this Tribunal on issue no. 1and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.35,200/- (Rupees Thirty Five MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.49 /74 Thousand Two Hundred) qua petitioner no.1 Sh. Mahesh, Rs. 6,77,300/- (Rupees Six Lac Seventy Seven Thousand Three Hundred) qua petitioner no.2 Rahul, S/o Sh. Vinod, Rs. 1,29,700/- (One Lac Twenty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred) qua petitioner no.3 Rohit, Rs. 1,18,000/- (Rupees One Lac Eighteen Thousand) qua petitioner no.4 Sh. Vinod, Rs. 22,68,300/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lac Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred) qua petitioner no. 5 Rahul @ Satish including interim award, if any, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum AND against respondents (to be indemnified by the insurer) w.e.f. date of filing of the DAR/petition i.e 25.02.2011 till the date of its realization. Respondent no. 3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award with upto date interest within 30 days from today i.e. the date of passing the award. Reliance is placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors., bearing MAC APP 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016.
APPORTIONMENT
89. Examination of petitioner no. 1. Sh. Mahesh, petitioner no.3 Sh. Rohit and Sh. Vinod to ascertain their financial condition/needs, mode of disbursement and amount to be kept in fixed deposits in terms of clause 26 (now clause 29 of MCTAP) could not be recorded for want of requisite documents and due to pandemic Covid-19. The petitioners have failed to furnish the requisite documents in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP despite directions being given vide order dated 06.05.2019 and on 08.12.2020 In these circumstances and in view of the clause 29 of MCTAP, the disbursement is withheld. The Branch Manager concerned shall not release any amount to the petitioner unless compliance of clause 29 of MCTAP is made.
Examination of petitioner no. 2 Sh. Rahul Kumar and petitioner no. 5 Sh. Satish @ Rahul to ascertain their financial condition/needs, mode of MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.50 /74 disbursement and amount to be kept in fixed deposits in terms of clause 26 (now clause 29 of MCTAP were recorded on 27.11.2017. The Bank Manager of the concerned bank where the petitioners have opened their MACT Claims SB Account were also directed not to issue any cheque book (s) or Debit Card/ATM Card against the said account and shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioners to this effect. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present claim petition and in view of said statement of the injured/petitioners and clause 32 of MCTAP regarding protection of the award amount, It is hereby ordered that out of the total compensation amount, Rs. 1,00,000/- be released to the petitioner no.2 Sh. Rahul Kumar, S/o Sh. Vinod through his saving bank account bearing no. 32862327359, SBI, Kisok Banking, KO Location:
Shakurpur, Delhi, IFSC code:- SBIN0004835 and rest of the amount with proportionate interest be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD). In case, the MACAD Scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be converted into FDR's of Rs. 30,000/- each for the period of three-
months, six months, nine months, one year and so on so forth having cumulative interest in the name of petitioner Rahul, S/o Sh. Vinod.
It is further hereby ordered that out of total compensation of petitioner no. 4 Sh. Satish @ Rahul, Rs. 2,00,000/- be released to him through his saving bank account bearing no. 90006791904 in State Bank of India, branch District courts, Rohini, Delhi, IFSC code no. SBIN00100323 and rest of the amount with proportionate interest be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD). In case, the MACAD Scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be converted into FDR's of Rs. 50,000/- each for the period of three-months, six months, nine months, one year and so on so forth having cumulative interest in the name of petitioner Satish @ Rahul.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.51 /74
90. Petitioners are at liberty to submit his Form 15G and 15H whichever is applicable directly to the Office of Insurance Company for exemption from TDS as per law. Accordingly, the award amount with interest, is directed to be deposited by R-3 i.e. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. in State Bank of India, Branch Rohini Court Complex, Delhi initially which shall then transmit the amount in MACAD account of the petitioner for maximum benefit of interest.
91. The respondent no. 3 i.e. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd Shall give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) and shall file a compliance report with this Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant (s) with a copy of their counsel within 30 days of the award. The names and address of the claimants are mentioned at page No. 1 of this award and the names and addresses of their counsels are as under:-
Sh. Shashi Rajnan, Ld. counsel for petitioner Rohit and Mahesh En. No. D-/932/2011 Ch. No. 219, Lawyers Chamber Block, Rohini Courts complex, Delhi.
And Sh. Mandeep Bansal, Ld. counsel for petitioner Rahul S/o Sh. Vinod.
And Sh. Mahender Malhotra, Ld. counsel for petitioner Rahul @ Satish, S/o Sh. Rakesh Ch. No. 699, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
And Sh. Ram Kishan, Ld. Counsel for petitioner Sh. Vinod.
En. No. D-861/10, 3rd Floor, Bar Room Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.52 /74 DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT IN TERMS OF THE CLAUSE 31 OF MCTAP.
92. The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant(s) through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO 842/2003 titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir & Ors." However, till the time MACAD scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioners are not put to any undue inconvenience, the fixed deposit may be opened subject to following conditions:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the saving bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioners.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the bank in their safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the petitioners.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant (s) as stipulated aforesaid.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by electronic clearing system (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant (s) as mentioned aforesaid.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the tribunal.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant (s).
However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall freeze debit card
(s) issued in respect of the account of the claimant (s).
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
93. It is made clear that at the time of deposit of award amount with the bank, the insurance company shall specifically mention the Case No., title of the case, date of award and the name of the court on the backside of the cheque MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.53 /74 and the insurance company shall also file the attested copy of the award, attested by its own officer, to the bank at the time of deposit of the amount with the bank. The Manager concerned of the bank is directed to comply the award and further directed to release the award amount to the petitioner through bank account. Till the amount is released through the said account, the concerned banks shall keep the money in FDR's to avoid any loss of interest.
94. R-3 i.e. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd is directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days after sending notice of deposit to the petitioners.
95. Copy of this judgment/award be given to petitioner and counsel for R-3 for compliance. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DSLSA as per clause 35 (ii) and 36 of MCTAP. The same be also placed in all the claim petition files.
96. Copy of this award be also sent to the Nodal Officer State Bank of India, through e-mail ID i.e. [email protected] in terms of the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in case FAO No. 842/03 titled "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir & Ors.
97. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. However, separate miscellaneous file be prepared for compliance of award in terms of clause 34 of MCTAP which is to be put up by Nazir of the tribunal along-with his report on 01.03.2021.
Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 30.01.2021 (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) ADJ-1 + MACT (N/W), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.54 /74 FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD OF INJURED PETITIONER NO.1 MAHESH
1. Date of the accident: - 20.06.2010
2. Name of injured:- Sh. Mahesh.
3. Age of the injured:- 28 years (at the time of the accident)
4. Occupation of the injured:- Petitioner/injured was self employed at the time of the accident.
5. Income of the injured:- Rs. 5278/-
6. Nature of injury:- Simple.
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured:- Petitioner/injured was first got admitted to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and thereafter, he was shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi.
8. Period of hospitalization: Not mentioned.
9. Whether any permanent disability? If yes, give details: - No.
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Nil
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 5000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 10000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 2500/- (v) Loss of earning capacity ---- (vi) Loss of income/ Loss to studies Rs.2639/-
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.55 /74
(vii) Any other loss which may require any -
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical --
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life --
(iv) Disfiguration --
(v) Loss of marriage prospects --
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
hardships, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and --
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of --
expectation of life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity --
in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X% --
Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 35,139p
Rounded off Rs. 35,200/-
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.56 /74
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 31,480.37p award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 66,680.37p
18. Award amount released Examination of petitioner no. 1. Sh. Mahesh, petitioner no.3 Sh. Rohit and Sh. Vinod to ascertain their financial condition/needs, mode of disbursement and amount to be kept in fixed deposits in terms of clause 26 (now clause 29 of MCTAP) could not be recorded for want of requisite documents and due to pandemic Covid-
19. The petitioners have failed to furnish the requisite documents in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP despite directions being given vide order dated 06.05.2019 and on 08.12.2020 In these circumstances and in view of the clause 29 of MCTAP, the disbursement is withheld. The Branch Manager concerned shall not release any amount to the petitioners unless MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.57 /74 compliance of clause 29 of MCTAP is made.
19. Award amount kept in FDRs ____
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Motor Accident Claims amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in terms of clause 32 of MCTAP.
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 01.03.2021 (Clause 31) (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) ADJ-1+MACT(N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.58 /74 FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD OF INJURED PETITIONER NO.2 RAHUL KUMAR
1. Date of the accident:- 20.06.2010
2. Name of injured:- Sh. Rahul Kumar S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar.
3. Age of the injured:- 20 years (at the time of the accident)
4. Occupation of the injured:- Petitioner/injured was working as a labourer with the Beats Entertainment Co.
5. Income of the injured:- Rs. 5278/-
6. Nature of injury:- Grievous.
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured:- Petitioner/injured was first got admitted to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and thereafter, he was shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi.
8. Period of hospitalization:- Petitioner remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f.
20.06.2010 to 26.06.2010 and 03.07.2010 to 31.07.2010.
9. Whether any permanent disability? If yes, give details:- Yes, petitioner injured is having 24% disability in relation to spine.
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 1,25,000
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.15,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 20,000/-
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.59 /74
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 12,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity ----
(vi) Loss of income/ Loss to studies Rs.31,668/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require any -
special treatment or aid to the injured
for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical --
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Rs. 50,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 50,000/-
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
hardships, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and --
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of --
expectation of life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity --
in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X% Rs. 2,73,611.52p
Earning capacity X Multiplier)
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.60 /74
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 6,77,279.52p Rounded off Rs.
6,77,300/-.
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 6,05,728.87p award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 12,83,028.87p
18. Award amount released Rs. 1,00,000/- be released to the petitioner Sh. Rahul, S/o Sh. Vinod.
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 1,00,000/- be released to the petitioner no.2 Sh. Rahul Kumar, S/o Sh. Vinod through his saving bank account bearing no. 32862327359, SBI, Kisok Banking, KO Location: Shakurpur, Delhi, IFSC code:-
SBIN0004835 and rest of the amount with proportionate interest be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD). In case, the MACAD Scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.61 /74 the remaining amount be converted into FDR's of Rs. 30,000/- each for the period of three-months, six months, nine months, one year and so on so forth having cumulative interest in the name of petitioner Rahul, S/o Sh.
Vinod.
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Motor Accident Claims amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in terms of clause 32 of MCTAP.
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 01.03.2021 (Clause 31) (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) ADJ-1+MACT(N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.62 /74 FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD OF INJURED PETITIONER NO.3 ROHIT, S/O NAND KISHORE
1. Date of the accident:- 20.06.2010
2. Name of injured:- Sh. Rohit
3. Age of the injured:- 18 years (at the time of the accident)
4. Occupation of the injured:- Petitioner/injured was working with DJ Sound Group.
5. Income of the injured:- Rs. 5278/-
6. Nature of injury:- Simple.
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured:- Petitioner/injured was first got admitted to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and thereafter, he was shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi.
8. Period of hospitalization:- Petitioner/injured remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 20.06.2010 to 24.06.2010.
9. Whether any permanent disability? If yes, give details:- No.
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 50,801/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 15,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 8000/-
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.63 /74
(v) Loss of earning capacity ----
(vi) Loss of income/ Loss to studies Rs. 15,834/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require any -
special treatment or aid to the injured
for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical --
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
hardships, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and --
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of --
expectation of life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity --
in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X% __
Earning capacity X Multiplier)
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.64 /74
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 1,29,635p Round off Rs. 1,29,700/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 1,15,994.44p award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 2,45,694.44p
18. Award amount released Examination of petitioner no. 1. Sh. Mahesh, petitioner no.3 Sh. Rohit and petitioner no. 4 Sh.
Vinod to ascertain their financial condition/needs, mode of disbursement and amount to be kept in fixed deposits in terms of clause 26 (now clause 29 of MCTAP) could not be recorded for want of requisite documents and due to pandemic Covid-
19. The petitioners have failed to furnish the requisite documents in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP despite directions being given vide order dated 06.05.2019 and on 08.12.2020 In these circumstances and in view of the clause 29 of MCTAP, the disbursement is withheld. The Branch Manager concerned shall MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.65 /74 not release any amount to the petitioners unless compliance of clause 29 of MCTAP is made.
19. Award amount kept in FDRs ____
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Motor Accident Claims amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in terms of clause 32 of MCTAP.
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 01.03.2021 (Clause 31) (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) ADJ-1+MACT(N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.66 /74 FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD OF INJURED PETITIONER NO.4 SH. VINOD
1. Date of the accident:- 20.06.2010
2. Name of injured:- Sh. Vinod.
3. Age of the injured:- 41 years (at the time of the accident)
4. Occupation of the injured:- Petitioner/injured was working with M/s. Beats International.
5. Income of the injured:- Rs. 5278/-
6. Nature of injury:- Simple.
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured:- Petitioner/injured was first got admitted to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and thereafter, he was shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi.
8. Period of hospitalization:- Not mentioned.
9. Whether any permanent disability? If yes, give details:- No.
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Nil.
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 20,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 16,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity ---- (vi) Loss of income/ Loss to studies Rs.21,112/-
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.67 /74
(vii) Any other loss which may require any -
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical --
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
hardships, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and --
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of --
expectation of life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity --
in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X%
Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 1,17,112p
Rounded off Rs.
1,18,000/-.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.68 /74
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 1,05,530.79p award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 2,23,530.78p
18. Award amount released Examination of petitioner no. 1. Sh. Mahesh, petitioner no.3 Sh. Rohit and petitioner no. 4 Sh.
Vinod to ascertain their financial condition/needs, mode of disbursement and amount to be kept in fixed deposits in terms of clause 26 (now clause 29 of MCTAP) could not be recorded for want of requisite documents and due to pandemic Covid-
19. The petitioners have failed to furnish the requisite documents in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP despite directions being given vide order dated 06.05.2019 and on 08.12.2020 In these circumstances and in view of the clause 29 of MCTAP, the disbursement is withheld. The Branch Manager concerned shall not release any amount to the petitioners unless compliance of clause 29 of MCTAP is made.
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.69 /74
19. Award amount kept in FDRs __
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Motor Accident Claims amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in terms of clause 32 of MCTAP.
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 01.03.2021 (Clause 31) (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) ADJ-1+MACT(N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.70 /74 FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD OF INJURED PETITIONER NO.5 RAHUL @ SATISH
1. Date of the accident:- 20.06.2010
2. Name of injured:- Sh. Rahul @ Satish.
3. Age of the injured:- 18 years (at the time of the accident)
4. Occupation of the injured:- Petitioner/injured was self employed.
5. Income of the injured:- Rs. 6448/-
6. Nature of injury:- Grievous.
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured:- Petitioner/injured was first got admitted to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and thereafter, he was shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi.
8. Period of hospitalization:- Petitioner remained admitted in Jaipur Golden Hospital w.e.f. 25.06.2010 to 17.08.2010 and 13.11.2010 to 22.11.2010.
9. Whether any permanent disability? If yes, give details:- Yes, petitioner injured suffered grievous injuries resulted into a disablement to the extent of 100% in relation to both eyes.
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 2,50,142/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 50,000/-
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.71 /74
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 48,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity ----
(vi) Loss of income/ Loss to studies Rs.77,376/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require any -
special treatment or aid to the injured
for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical --
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Rs. 1,00,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Rs.1,00,000/-
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
hardships, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and --
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of --
expectation of life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity --
in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X% Rs.13,92,768/-
Earning capacity X Multiplier)
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.72 /74
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 22,68,286/-
Rounded off Rs.
22,68,300/-.
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 20,28,593.42p
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 42,96,879.42p
18. Award amount released Rs. 2,00,000/- be
released to the petitioner
Sh. Rahul @ Satish.
19. Award amount kept in FDRs It is further hereby
ordered that out of total
compensation of petitioner
no. 4 Sh. Satish @ Rahul,
Rs. 2,00,000/- be
released to him through
his saving bank account
bearing no. 90006791904
in State Bank of India,
branch District courts,
Rohini, Delhi, IFSC code
no. SBIN00100323 and
rest of the amount with
proportionate interest be
kept in Motor Accident
Claims Annuity Account
(MACAD). In case, the
MACAD Scheme has not
become fully operational
in the concerned bank, till
the time the same
becomes fully operational,
MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.73 /74 the remaining amount be converted into FDR's of Rs. 50,000/- each for the period of three-months, six months, nine months, one year and so on so forth having cumulative interest in the name of petitioner Satish @ Rahul.
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Motor Accident Claims amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in terms of clause 32 of MCTAP.
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 01.03.2021 (Clause 31) (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) ADJ-1+MACT(N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.74 /74