Delhi District Court
Mohit Kumar (Dar) vs Alimuddin (446/19, Oia) on 17 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 342/2021
FIR no. 446/2019
PS : Okhla Indl. Area
U/s : 279/338 IPC
CNR No.DLSE010035942021
Mohit Kumar
S/o Sh. Shyam Singh
R/o B-415, Transit Camp,
Govindpuri,
New Delhi. .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Alimuddin
S/o Kamruddin
R/o Karoli, PS Dariyapur,
Distt. Bulandshahar (UP). .....R-1/ driver
2. Yogesh
S/o Sh. Ram Sneh Yadav
R/o B-434 Gali No.14, 15,
Janta Jeevan Camp,
Okhla Phase-2,
New Delhi. .....R-2/owner
3. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ground Floor, Plot No. 522,
Block-B, Sector-44
Gurugram (Haryana) ..... R-3/Ins. Co.
Date of accident : 19.12.2019
Date of filing of DAR : 01.04.2021
Date of Decision : 17.04.2025
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 1 of 32
AWARD
1. Detailed Accident Report was filed by police in terms of
provisions of Motor Vehicle Act in respect of injuries sustained
by Sh. Mohit Kumar (hereinafter called the claimant) on account
of alleged rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing
Registration No. HR 73 4565 (hereinafter called the offending
vehicle) driven by Sh.Alimuddin (hereinafter called the
Respondent No.1), owned by Sh. Yogesh (hereinafter called the
Respondent No.2) and insured with Universal Sompo General
Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter called the insurance
company), which is being treated as Claim Petition in view of the
provisions contained in such Act.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. On 19.12.2019, upon receipt of DD No. 45A and 47A, SI
Mahabir Singh along-with Ct. Surender reached at Red Light in
front of W-42, Okhla Industrial Area-II, where one water tanker
bearing registration no. HR73 4565 and one motorcycle bearing
registration no. DL3SAN 0873 were found in accidental
condition. There, they also came to know that injured has already
been rushed to ESI Hospital. Accordingly, they reached ESI
hospital and collected MLC of Mohit Kumar (injured), however
injured was shifted to AIIMS Trauma Center. Thereafter, they
reached AIIMS Trauma Center, where they were told that injured
has already been discharged after treatment. On 20.12.2019,
injured came to PS and got his statement recorded pertaining to
factual circumstances leading to accident. He disclosed that on
19.12.2019 at about 9.30 p.m., while he along-with his Assistant
Operator Rakesh Kumar, after leaving some goods at their
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 2 of 32
Branch Office at A-58, DTDC Branch Okhla, New Delhi were
returning to their office and reached at Red Light, W-42, Okhla
Phase-II, New Delhi, one water tanker bearing registration no.
HR73 4565 being driven speedily in rash and negligent manner
came from front side and abruptly turned towards right side
without giving any indication and ended up ramming into the
motor cycle of injured. Driver of water tanker fled away from the
spot after leaving the water tanker at the spot. PCR Van reached
at the spot and took him to ESI Hospital, from where he was
shifted to AIIMS Trauma Center. FIR was registered on the
statement/ complaint of injured. Site Plan was also prepared at
the pointing out of injured. Offending vehicle as well as
motorcycle were taken into police possession. Notice under
Section 133 M. V. Act was served upon owner of the offending
vehicle, who confirmed that offending vehicle was being driven
by respondent no. 1. Documents pertaining to the offending
vehicle were also handed over and found to be in order. The
offending vehicle was seized and got mechanically inspected.
Subsequently, upon conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed before concerned criminal court while DAR was filed
before this Tribunal.
3. Copy of DAR was supplied to all the respondents. Written
Statement was filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 and 2, while
Insurance company has chosen not to file any reply, despite
submissions of Ld. Counsel for insurance company that
insurance company wants to file legal offer and did not raise any
statutory defence, however, reply was not filed and the matter
proceeded further for recording of evidence.
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 3 of 32
REPLY
4. In Written Statement filed on behalf of R-1 and R-2, it is
stated that R-1/driver has been falsely implicated as he was not
negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident. It is
further mentioned that claimant met with an accident due to his
own negligence and carelessness. It is further stated that R-1 had
a valid driving license as on the date of accident, while the
alleged offending vehicle was duly insured, as verified by the
Investigating Officer during investigation, hence respondent
nos.1 and 2 are not liable to pay any compensation.
5. No written statement was filed on behalf of insurance
company.
ISSUES :
6. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 27.07.2022 :
i). Whether the injured suffered grievous injury
in a road traffic accident on 19.12.2019 due to rash
and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. HR73
4565 driven by R1 and owned by R2 and insured
with R3? OPP.
ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation and if so, to what extent and from
whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
DISABILITY
7. Applicant / claimant moved an application for assessment
of disability which was allowed vide order dated 29.03.2022. A
Disability Certificate was received from Pandit Madan Mohan
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 4 of 32
Malviya Hospital, New Delhi as noted in order dated 21.03.2023
wherein Medical Board opined that injured has suffered 06%
permanent physical impairment qua his both upper limbs as per
communication dated 17.05.2023 addressed by Chairperson,
Disability Board, Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital.
EVIDENCE
8. Matter was then listed for evidence before Local
Commissioner. Injured examined himself as PW1 and tendered
his evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon DAR
Ex.PW1/1, Discharge Summary and OPD Card Ex.PW1/2
(colly), ID card and Salary Slip of DTDC Ex.PW1/3 (colly), ID
Card and Salary Slip of Epicurean Travels Ex.PW1/4 (colly),
Disability Certificate Ex.PW1/5, Medical/Treatment Bills
Ex.PW1/6 (colly), Copy of statement of account Mark-A. PW1
was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2 as
well as insurance company.
9. None of the respondents chose to lead evidence in their
defence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
10. Final Arguments were advanced. Ld. Counsel for claimant
argued that the accident happened only due to reckless driving of
the Respondent no.1 at the time of accident. He also specified
that injured was working with DTDC on a monthly salary of
Rs.16,000/- and was also employed as Visa Executive in
Epicurean Travels, earning about Rs.12,000/- per month. Written
submissions have also been filed on behalf of claimant.
11. Ld. Counsel for insurance company per contra argued that
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 5 of 32
injured could, at the most, prove his employment with DTDC
and therefore, dual employment assertion must not be
considered. Further, injured has suffered negligible disability and
thus not eligible for award of future prospects on account of
functional disability. The validity of insurance policy was
conceded.
DISCUSSION
12. On the basis of material on record and arguments
addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
"Whether the injured suffered grievous injury in a road traffic
accident on 19.12.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of
vehicle bearing no. HR73 4565 driven by R1 and owned by
R2 and insured with R3? OPP."
13. What is required to be ascertained is whether rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle resulted in accident which
caused injuries to the claimant.
14. It has been held in catena of cases that negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the
proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the
proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are
not applicable (support drawn from the case of Bimla Devi &
Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors [(2009) 13
SC 530, [Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India
Assurance Company Limited, [2001 ACJ 421 SC], [National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana cited as [2009 ACJ
287 Del].
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 6 of 32
15. PW1 has categorically deposed in his evidentiary affidavit
Ex.PW1/A about the irresponsible and reckless driving of
respondent no.1 on account of which he sustained injuries. No
evidence has been adduced on behalf of the driver to dispute the
factum or manner of accident or to prove that he was not driving
the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner or there was
some cause beyond his control due to which accident happened.
There is no evidence to show that accident can be attributed to
rash driving on the part of injured or that he could have averted
the accident in any manner. PW1 has faced extensive cross-
examination by Ld. Counsels for both respondents but none of
them could elicit any material contradiction sufficient to pose any
doubt to contextual circumstances leading to accident.
16. Any evidence with respect to non-involvement of the
offending vehicle or incorrect identification thereof has not been
adduced by any of the respondents. The offending vehicle as well
as motorcycle of the injured were found at the spot in accidental
condition. Investigation Report forming part of DAR also
concludes that offending vehicle was driven by respondent no.1
in rash and negligent manner which caused the accident injuring
claimant. No case has been set up to show that the respondent
no.1 was not at wheels of the offending vehicle at the time of
accident. In response to notice under Section 133 of M. V. Act,
owner of the offending vehicle has disclosed that offending
vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 on the date of
accident. There is nothing on record to doubt the veracity of the
petitioner or to disbelieve the version put forth by him with
respect to mode and manner of the accident.
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 7 of 32
17. It is settled that if driver of offending vehicle does not
enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against
him as observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3)
AD Delhi 310. In the present case also, driver/respondent no. 1
did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of
petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident. Bare
denial of rashness on his respondent no.1 cannot take place of
proof that he was not negligent in driving the offending vehicle.
18. In the backdrop of discussion made above, specially
relying upon testimony of PW1, it can be stated that the driver
failed to exercise duty of care expected of a reasonable person on
the wheels and acted with utter recklessness and indifference
towards the possible consequences.
19. Having so concluded, it is evident that accident happened
on account of speedy and rash and negligent driving by
respondent no.1/driver of the offending vehicle. Issue in hand is
accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if
so, to what extent and from whom?OPP"
20. Section 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold
an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 8 of 32
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application
to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the
insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into
the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and,
subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award
determining the amount of compensation which appears to
it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom
compensation shall be paid and in making the award the
Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be
paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle
involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the
case may be: Provided that where such application makes a
claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the
death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim
and any other claim (whether made in such application or
otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or
permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance
with the provisions of Chapter X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of
the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any
case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the
award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person
who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award
shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the
award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount
awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may
direct."
21. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
22. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle
compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position
as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 9 of 32
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These
general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Ram Yadav vs. New
India Insurance Company Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683] .
23. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty &
Anr., (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation
must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of
profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and
tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and
quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just.
What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question.
There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for
measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of
damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical
calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and
circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if
any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing
compensation has to be considered in the background of
"just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration.
Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be
just", a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the
determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious
approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and
arbitrariness.. ..."
24. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755 , made following
observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being calculated in
terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those
which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 10 of 32
calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary
damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant:
(i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to
the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-
pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i)
damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering,
already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii)
damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life
which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of
injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii)
damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account
of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is
shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,
disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
25. Certain principles for delineating just compensation were
enumerated in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.,
(2011) 1 SCC 343, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Following observations are relevant in the context:
"40.General principles relating to compensation in injury
cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the
Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just,
which means that compensation should, to the extent
possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. The object of awarding
damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of
wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable
and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have
to assess the damages objectively and exclude from
consideration any speculation or fancy, though some
conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its
consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss
which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means
that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full
life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he
would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to
earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See
C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3
SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest
Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC
(Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970)
2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 11 of 32
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the
injured would have made had he not been injured,
comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be
awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is
only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific
medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the
claimant, that compensation will be granted under any
of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of
future earnings on account of permanent disability,
future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss
of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of
life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i)
and under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as
they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily
ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the
head of future medical expenses--Item (iii)--depends
upon specific medical evidence regarding need for
further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-
pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--
involves determination of lump sum amounts with
reference to circumstances such as age, nature of
injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant
and the effect thereof on the future life of the
claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts
contain necessary guidelines for award under these
heads, if necessary. What usually poses some
difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 12 of 32
earnings on account of permanent disability--Item (ii)
(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this
case.
Assessment of future loss of earnings due to
permanent disability
8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability
to perform an activity in the manner considered
normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers
to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part
of the body, found existing at the end of the period of
treatment and recuperation, after achieving the
maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is
likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured.
Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body on account of the injury,
which will cease to exist at the end of the period of
treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can
be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability
refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties
and bodily functions that he could perform before the
accident, though he is able to perform some of them
and is still able to engage in some gainful activity.
Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability
to perform any avocation or employment related
activities as a result of the accident. The permanent
disabilities that may arise from motor accident
injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to
the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the
disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the
Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a
motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for
the purpose of claiming compensation.
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed
by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or
more often than not, with reference to a particular
limb. When a disability certificate states that the
injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent
of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as
45% permanent disability with reference to the whole
body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the
body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total
functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed
to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If
there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand
and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not
mean that the extent of permanent disability with
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 13 of 32
reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus
60%). If different parts of the body have suffered
different percentages of disabilities, the sum total
thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability
with reference to the whole body cannot obviously
exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability
as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation
under the head of loss of future earnings would
depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent
disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should
not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent
disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of
earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage
of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of
earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability
will be different from the percentage of permanent
disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all
cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent
disability would result in a corresponding loss of
earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence
produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will
hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity.
In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage)
of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage)
of permanent disability will result in award of either
too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the
effect of the permanent disability on the earning
capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of
earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the
income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to
arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the
standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency). We may however note that in some
cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the
Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of
earning capacity as a result of the permanent
disability, is approximately the same as the percentage
of permanent disability in which case, of course, the
Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for
determination of compensation. (See for example, the
decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and
Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010)
10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8
Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 14 of 32
there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent
of such permanent disability. This means that the
Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to
the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or
temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is
permanent total disablement or permanent partial
disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the functioning of the
entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered
by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent
disability then there is no question of proceeding
further and determining the loss of future earning
capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is
permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain
its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual
extent of permanent disability of the claimant based
on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether
such permanent disability has affected or will affect
his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
disability on the actual earning capacity involves three
steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what
activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the
permanent disability and what he could not do as a
result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant
for awarding compensation under the head of loss of
amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his
avocation, profession and nature of work before the
accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out
whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from
earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite
of the permanent disability, the claimant could still
effectively carry on the activities and functions, which
he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was
prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other
or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he
continues to earn or can continue to earn his
livelihood.
.
.
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 15 of 32
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.""
26. The above-said principles have been placed reliance upon in a recent judgment reported as Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr., arising out of SLP (Civil) no. 19277 of 2018 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as decided on 16.11.2022.
27. It is settled proposition of law as held in catena of judgments that "just compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 16 of 32 compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to face their lives.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES
28. Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves reimbursement of actual amount spent on account of injury suffered in an accident to undo the monetary loss, suffered by the claimant, as ascertainable from the evidence on record. Given hereunder are various heads under which compensation for pecuniary damages is assessed:
(i) Expenditure on Medical Treatment:
PW1 in his evidentiary affidavit deposed that he incurred Rs.2,50,000/- on his treatment, however, in the computation filed on behalf of claimant, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been shown under the head of 'expenditure on treatment', however, medical bills has been filed only to the tune of Rs.7,630/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is additionally awarded towards the sundry medical expenses. Hence claimant is awarded Rs.17,630/-.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance :
No bill for conveyance has been filed, however considering the nature of injuries, claimant would have been required to travel to medical facilities for his treatment. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet :
There is no prescription for special diet, however, considering the nature of injuries, nutritious diet for speedy recovery would have been necessary. Claimant suffered 06% MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 17 of 32 permanent physical disability qua his both upper limbs. An amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant :
PW1 has not deposed anything about attendant charges he had to entail, however has mentioned about Rs.50,000/- spent on nursing/attendant. Considering that he suffered 6% disability qua his both upper limb, claimant would have required the services of attendant atleast during recovery period and considering that compensation for attendant's charges is to be given even if services were rendered by family members, with no proof of engaging any formal attendant, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards cost of nursing/attendant.
(v) Loss of Income/earning :
PW1 in his evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW1/A has deposed that he was employed with DTDC, drawing salary of Rs.16,000/- per month and that, he was also working part-time as Visa Executive in Epicurean Travels, New Delhi, earning Rs.12,000/- monthly. He has filed ID Card and salary slip of DTDC as Ex.PW1/3 (colly) along-with statement of account Ex.PW1/5 (colly), which clearly reflect that salary of Rs.16,000/- was being credited monthly into his account by/on behalf of DTDC. In respect of part-time job with Epicurean Travels, he has placed on record salary slip and ID Card of Epicurean Travels as Ex.PW1/4 (colly). PW1 has additionally placed reliance upon Relieving Letter and Service Certificate issued by Epicurean Travels, noting his last drawn salary/income as Rs.12,000/- including fuel reimbursements. It is evident that the payout was assessed as per MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 18 of 32 actual consumption. Claimant has not placed on record any criteria of calculating the amount as per consumption. However, it cannot be denied that he was indeed engaged in part time job and drew additional income. Accordingly, his income from part-
time job with Epicurean Travels is considered to be Rs.8,000/- per month. Accordingly, his total monthly earnings are taken to be Rs.24,000/- per month (Rs.16,000/-pm from DTDC + Rs.8,000/- pm from Epicurean Travels).
PW1 deposed that he could not resume his work for six months and even lost his part-time job with Epicurean Travels on account of injuries sustained in accident. During cross- examination, PW1 stated that he did not remember the exact period but plaster lasted for six months. After the accident, claimant was taken to ESIC Hospital, Okhla Phase-I, however, he was referred to AIIMS Trauma Center for further management, where he was treated. Perusal of medical papers of AIIMS Trauma Center reflects that he was called for follow up once in the month of January and thereafter in March, 2019. Considering the nature of injury, period of treatment and the fact that claimant suffered 6% permanent physical impairment as also the fact that he had been engaged in field work, it can be inferred that he would not have been able to resume his work atleast for a period of four months post accident. Thus, loss of income during treatment is computed to be Rs.96,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 4).
(vi) Loss of future income/earning : (a) It is settled that a person is required to be compensated not
just for the physical injury but also for the loss he has suffered as well as the loss which he might entail for the rest of his life on MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 19 of 32 account of those injuries which he sustained in the accident. This necessarily means that he is required to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy normal amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the injury, his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (Support drawn from the judgment titled as C. K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair (1969) 3 SCC 64.
(b) Claimant was directed to be assessed for his disability vide order dated 29.03.2022. Disability Assessment Certificate was received as per which he was opined to have suffered 06% permanent physical disability in his both upper limbs.
(c) Further in the case of Mohan Soni v Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC), the question at hand was deliberated and following observations as relevant in the context were made:
"In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw- puller."
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 20 of 32
(d) The question of assessment of impact of disability on the earning capacity has been dealt in several cases but it is understood that each case has to be evaluated on its contextual dynamics established by way of evidence at hand. It brings us to a question whether extent of permanent disability as medically determined can simply be taken to be the extent of functional disability and hence, the loss of earning capacity. It has been held in various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court that equating the two as a criteria would result in an inobjective and absurd compensation. There however, might be certain cases where the two would correspond to each other but it cannot be mechanically applied rather requires evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity.
(d) In the present case, it is noted that petitioner/injured was employed with DTDC with his duties comprising primarily and doing field work, which requires driving and extensive mobility. Injured in his evidentiary affidavit has deposed that though he continues to work with DTDC, he is not comfortable with driving for long hours. As such, there is nothing to show that his salary has been reduced but as he works in a private setup, therefore, his physical fitness and ability to deliver would be deciding factor towards employment as well as his potential earning capacity. Having regard to nature of injury and the nature of work that he used to engage in, at the time of accident, his functional disability is assessed to be 5% in relation to his earning capacity.
FUTURE PROSPECT
29. PW1 in his deposition has relied upon his Aadhar Card, as MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 21 of 32 per which his date of birth is 28.10.1994. The date of accident is 19.12.2019. As such, on the date of accident he was about 25 years of age on the date of accident, therefore, applicable multiplier would be 18. (Reference drawn from the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. SLP (C) no. 8648 of 2007, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India). Since the injured was under the age of 40 (at the time of accident) and was employed on a fixed salary, thus as laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be @ 40 % upon application of category of ''self-employed or on a fixed salary''.
30. In case of Pappu Deo Yadav (supra), it is also held that future prospect (as laid down in the well considered judgment of National Insurance Company v Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) shall be payable, not only in fatal cases but also in the case of permanent disability.
31. In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(a) Annual income (Rs. 24,000/- x 12) = Rs.2,88,000/-
(b) Future prospect
(40% of Rs.2,88,000/-) = Rs.1,15,200/-
-----------------
(c) Total = Rs.4,03,200/-
------------------
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs.4,03,200/-
(e) Hence, the 'Total Loss of Future Income' shall be :-
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
5% (Rs.4,03,200/- x 18) = Rs. 3,62,880/- MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 22 of 32 NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
Damages for pain, suffering as well as mental and physical shock on account of injuries.
32. The mental and physical loss cannot always be arithmetically computed in terms of money. These form the intangible losses suffered by injured for no fault of his. Although any form of human suffering cannot be equated in money, however, the object remains to compensate in so far as the money can compensate. Certain observations made by the Supreme Court of India in R. D. Hattangadi (supra) are relevant in the context:
"10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame.
33. Certain factors were also laid down for consideration in the case of The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs Mahadeva Shetty And Anr Appeal (Civil) 5453 of 2003 further relied in the case of Sidram (supra) for awarding compensation for pain and suffering. The observations made in the aforesaid case as relevant to the context are reproduced hereunder:
"113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 23 of 32 physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim. [See: Pappu Deo Yadav (supra)]
34. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Suresh (supra) observed as follows:
"2. ... There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance."
But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity. (as relied in the case of Jagdish v Mohan AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 1347, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India).
35. The injured has suffered 06% disability in relation to his both upper limbs. It is settled that each case has to be evaluated upon his special circumstances in the backdrop of deprivation MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 24 of 32 which disability would cause on his future life. There is no methodology to weigh the sufferings in terms of money, however, the Tribunal is required to engage in some guess work objectively to consider the peculiar circumstances of the case at hand to be able to award suitable compensation with the object to place the victim in as near a position as the victim was in before the accident. An amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the injured against pain, suffering and and trauma sustained in the accident.
Loss of amenities of life:
36. Considering the nature of injury and the extent of disability, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.
TOTAL CALCULATIONS
37. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all concerned:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 17,630/-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs.20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.20,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.25,000/-
(v) Loss of income : Rs.96,000/-
(vi) Loss of future Income: Rs.3,62,880/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Compensation of Pain and Rs.50,000/-
suffering as well as mental and
physical shock
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 25 of 32
(ii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Disfiguration : Nil
Total Compensation Rs.6,01,510/-
Interest As directed below
38. It may be noted that in the judgment of Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no. 433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022 it was noted regarding rate of interest:
"25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for the applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding principles for the grant of interest. In Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148, the following was held while interpreting section 171 of the MV Act, 1988:-
Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc. into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the MV Act 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of the law. Interest liability is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor Sec. 4-A(3) of Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 26 of 32 the matter of fixing are of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal of the High Court as indicated above."
39. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, including in the case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27 July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case from the date of filing of DAR till realization.
Liability :-
40. Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective insurance policy on the date of accident and has not raised any statutory defence. It has already been held that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. It is settled that insurance company is responsible to indemnify owner/insured for vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser. Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization.(If there is any order regarding exclusion of interest for specific period, same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount. Further, if any auction proceed is received, same be adjusted in the final award amount). .
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 27 of 32 Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
41. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SOUTH EAST - 02, A/c No. 42706870765, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir along with calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
42. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
43. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 28 of 32
44. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 29 of 32 mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semi literate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice....."
45. In this background of legal position, it may be noted that in MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 30 of 32 present case, claimant suffered injury and incurred expenses including on medical expenses, special diet, conveyance. Further, in the considered view of this Tribunal, the purpose of such Award is to compensate the petitioner for the financial loss already sustained that is to reimburse the same, in the same manner in which he would have otherwise earned.
46. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the above-said guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, entire award amount of Rs.6,01,510/ along with interest, be released to the petitioner/injured in his bank account near his place of residence as per rule/ directions.
FORM -VI-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 19.12.2019 2 Name of injured Mohit Kumar 3 Age of the injured 25 years 4 Occupation of the As per record injured 5 Income of the injured As per record 6 Nature of injury Grievous 7 Medical treatment As per record.
taken by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 31 of 32 Hospitalization 9 Whether any Yes. (6 % permanent physical permanent disability? impairment in relation to his both upper limbs).
47. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be also sent to the DLSA and Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
48. Put up for compliance on 17.05.2025 Announced in the open court on 17th April, 2025 (Shelly Arora) PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket New Delhi Digitally signed by SHELLY SHELLY ARORA ARORA Date:
2025.04.17 16:32:22 +0530 MACT No. 342/2021 Mohit Kumar vs. Alimuddin Page No. 32 of 32