Delhi District Court
Ms. Monika D/O. Late Sh. Sabajeet Singh vs Sh. Jagtar Singh S/O. Sh. Kulvinder on 5 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUNALI GUPTA, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, DISTRICT - NE, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.: 14571/15
CNR No. DLNE0100001452014
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. Ms. Monika D/o. Late Sh. Sabajeet Singh
R/o:- H. No. E-10/A-21/B,
CPJ-II Block, New Seelampur,
New Delhi.
...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Jagtar Singh S/o. Sh. Kulvinder
R/o H-2, New Seelampur, Delhi-53
.... Driver
2. Sh. Kamal Singh
R/o CPJ/119, Block-J,
New Seelampur, East Delhi-110053
... Owner
3. The United India Insurance Company Limited
At: 202, Vardhman Complex, C-2,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053 ..... Insurer
..... Respondents
Date of Institution of petition : 12.12.2014
Date of Award : 22.11.2018
Date of remand back from
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi : 15.11.2019
Date of Arguments : 26.07.2022
Date of Judgment / Order : 05.08.2022
Advocates appearing in the case:
For petitioner : Mr. Dheeraj Kulshrestha
For respondent no. 1 & 2 : None
For Insurance company : Mr. S. Ghosh
MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 17
AWARD
1. By this judgment / Award I shall decide the MACT claim petition u/s 166
& 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M V Act) filed by the petitioners for grant of
compensation.
2. Important to note herein that the present claim petition was decided by the
ld. Predecessor of this court and Award dated 22.11.2018 was passed. Against the
said Award the petitioner preferred an Appeal. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide
order dated 15.11.2019 remanded back the matter to award compensation on merit
under Section 166 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court in the said order had also
settled the issue with regard to the rashness in driving and held that the rashness and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its Driver stands established. The
paragraphs of the order dated 15.11.2019 containing these observations are
reproduced herein-under:
"7. In the circumstances, there is no manner of doubt apropos the rashness
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and the same is
clearly established. The learned Tribunal has erred in holding otherwise.
8. ....
9. In the present case, simply because the policy had been cancelled and so
intimated to the owner of the vehicle, the third party liability of the insurer
was discharged. This discharge of the insurer is set aside because the issue
has not been adequately dealt with. It will be open to the parties to agitate
this issue before the learned Tribunal.
10. In view of the above, impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded
to the learned Tribunal to award compensation on merit under section 166 of
the Act. The parties are at liberty to lead their evidence in this regard...".
FACTS STATED IN THE CLAIM PETITION
3. Brief facts of the present case are that on 09.11.2014 at about 4:20 AM, the seven passengers were going in car bearing No. DL-2CAB-1232 from Delhi to Mathura. The car was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, rashly and negligently. The occupants of the car requested the driver to drive the car at slow speed but he did not listen to them. When the car reached KM 90 + 750 Noida, UP, MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 17 due to high speed of the car, the driver lost control over the car and car hit against the divider. As a result of which, four occupants of the car namely Ms. Monika, Ms. Yogita, Ms. Yashika and Master Himanshu were grievously injured and three occupants namely Sh. Sabajeet Singh, Sh. Jalalluddin and Ms. Shiv Kumari died. Except occupant Sh. Jalalluddin, all the other 6 occupants belonged to the same family - Mother, Father and 4 children. Case No.300/14 was registered at PS Surir, Mathura, UP for offence U/s. 279/338/304-A IPC regarding the accident.
WS / REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.1 & 24. No WS has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 & 2 despite numerous / sufficient opportunities granted to them. Vide order dated 17.07.2015, the right to file WS on behalf of R-1 and R-2 was closed.
WS / REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.3
5. Respondent no. 3 i.e. The United India Insurance Company Limited filed its WS to the claim petition contending that no liability whatsoever can be fastened as against the insurance company for the reason that the insurance policy No. 041781/31/13/01/00032624 as relied upon by the petitioner pertaining to the offending vehicle No. DL-2CAB-1232 for the period from 22.03.2014 to 21.03.2015 was cancelled Ab Inito under intimation to the owner as well as to RTO, owing to the dishonour of the cheque No. 852599 dated 20.03.2014 for Rs.9,129/- drawn on Punjab National Bank on account of 'insufficient funds' which was furnished by the owner towards the premium for the insurance cover for the abovesaid vehicle No. DL-2CAB-1232.
ISSUES
6. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor, vide order dated 17.07.2015:-
(i) Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-2CAB-1232 by respondent no.1 on 09.11.2014 at about 4.20 am at Noida to Agra Expressway, MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 17 Noida, UP within the jurisdiction of PS Surir, Mathura, UP? OPP
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
(iii) Relief EVIDENCE
7. In petitioner's evidence, both PWs Ms. Monika and Ms. Yogita have been mentioned as PW-1. However to avoid confusion witnesses shall be read as PW-1 - Ms. Yogita, PW-2 Ms. Monika and PW-3 Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sati. . PW-1 Ms. Yogita - (Sister of Injured) has filed her affidavit by way of evidence as Ex. PW-1/A and exhibited the documents on record i.e. Ex.PW- 1/1 to Ex.PW-1/9.
. PW-2 Ms. Monika / Injured has filed her affidavit by way of evidence as Ex.PW-1/A and exhibited her aadhar card as Ex.PW-1/A.
8. In her cross-examination she deposed that she does not have any proof regarding her job / income nor any proof regarding the expenses incurred towards treatment or attendant apart from the bills already submitted. She denied that she has not suffered any disability due to the accident. She also deposed that she does not have any document to show her educational qualifications. There is no proof of her age and identity except for the aadhar card.
9. PW-2 - Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sati, Consultant - Neuro Surgeon, GTB Hospital, Delhi. He exhibited the disability certificate of petitioner as Ex.PW-2/1 and stated that patient is suffering from 87.5% permanent physical disability in relation to whole body and the petitioner is having severe weakness of all 4 limbs (Quadriparisis).
. During cross-examination, he deposed that Ms. Monika is having no feeling of sensation below shoulder portion of her body. He deposed that no medical board was constituted and he himself was the doctor who examined Monika. Document Ex. PW-2/XD3 was prepared by him after evaluation of physical condition of injured for issuance of disability certificate. A specific question was put MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 17 to the witness regarding the guidelines authorising him to individually examined the patient / injured for issuance of disability certificate. He replied that the patient suffered quadriparisis because of cervical injury which is treated by Neuro Surgeons. Being a qualified neuro surgeon his degree authorises him to issue the disability certificate. Whatever he did was done as instructed / authorised by MS GTB Hospital ,Delhi. He denied the suggestion that the disability certificate Ex.PW-2/1 is improper and the same has not been issued by following rules / guidelines.
10. I need not in detail note down the evidence led by PW-1 Yogita on the manner as to how the accident occurred as the issue of rashness has already been decided in affirmative by the Hon'ble High Court and evidence led by insurance company shall be discussed in detail while deciding the issue with regard to payment of compensation.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS ISSUE NO.1 Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-2CAB-1232 by respondent no.1 on 09.11.2014 at about 4.20 am at Noida to Agra Expressway, Noida, UP within the jurisdiction of PS Surir, Mathura, UP? OPP
11. Detailed discussion of the evidence led by the petitioners is not required as the issue of rashness has already been decided in affirmative by the Hon'ble High Court. The driver of the offending has been held to be rash and negligent in driving the vehicle.
ISSUE No. 2Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
12. On the basis of findings upon issue no.1 that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no.1wherein the husband of petitioner no.1 has expired, petitioners are thus, entitled to compensation.
13. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to make MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 17 payment of compensation to the petitioners. The prime contention of the insurance company is that the cheque which the owner of the offending vehicle had given to them towards insurance premium of the offending vehicle had got dishonoured and notice of the same was sent to the owner of the offending vehicle as well as to the RTO. In this regard, the insurance company has examined 5 witnesses - two witnesses were examined initially and three more witnesses were examined after the matter remanded to this Court by the Hon'ble High Court.
. R3W1 - Sh. Kanti Prasad - MO Incharge United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - He has deposed that in his routine job he received a cheque no. 852599 dated 20.03.2014 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi for a sum of Rs.9129/- from Sh. Kamal Singh (R-2) for the insurance cover of his car no. DL- 2CAB-1232. In response he issued a policy no. 041781/31/13/01/00032624 for a period 22.03.2014 to midnight on 21.03.2015 in his name for the said vehicle subject to realization of the cheque and handed over the original policy copy to the owner Sh. Kamal Singh. The original cheque is Ex. R3W1/A and office copy of this insurance policy is Ex. R3W1/B (Colly. Sheets). The reason for the original policy being in our possession is that the same got bounced from the bank owing to in sufficient funds in the account of Sh. Kamal Singh. The intimation letter and memo of return of cheque dated 25.03.2014 issued by their banker is Ex. R3W1/C and Ex. R3W1/D reflecting the reasons in the said document. Subsequently on receiving the abovesaid letters from the HDFC Bank they issued a letter dated 27.03.2014 in respect of cancellation of the abovesaid insurance policy Ex. R3W1/B ab-initio to Sh. Kamal Singh, owner of the vehicle under discussion with an intimation to RTO under postal receipts. The copies of the letters and original postal receipt are Ex. R3W1/E to Ex. R3W1/G. Accordingly insurance company has not liable to indemnify any amount of claim arising against Kamal Singh in respect of the use of the vehicle in connection with the abovesaid cancelled insurance policy. . R3W2 - Ms. Sunita Behl - Assistant Manager, Legal Department, United India Insurance Company Ltd. She has deposed that notice under order 12 MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 17 Rule 8 was issued to Sh. Jagtar Singh (Driver of the alleged offending vehicle no. DL-2C-AB-1232) for producing is original driving licence effective and valid as on 09.11.2014. Besides this the owner of the vehicle / private car (Chevrolet - Tavera) no. DL-2C-AB-1232 Kamal Singh was asked to produce the original insurance policy / document no. 041781/31/13/01/00032624 (period 22.03.2014 to 21.03.2015) for this vehicle: which was cancelled ab-initio / from inception owing to dishonour of the premium cheque no. 852599 dated 20.03.2014 for Rs.9129/- drawn on PNB, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. In addition to this the owner Sh. Kamal Singh was also asked vide the above said notice to produce original registration certificate, fitness certificate and permit (if any) in respect of the (Chevrolet Tavera) no. DL-2CAB- 1232 effective and valid as on 09.11.2014. The notices were prepared and sent by our counsel at our instructions vide registered post AD. The office copy of the notice is Ex.R3W2/A and the original postal receipts are Ex.R3W2/B (Colly. 2 receipts). There has been no response from the driver Sh. Jagtar Singh and the owner Sh. Kamal Singh to these notices.
. R3W3 - Sh. Girish Chandra Pandey - Postal Assistant, Seelampur, Delhi. He deposed that he has deputed by Sub Post Master, Seelampur Post Office Delhi. Earlier, Seelampur Post Office was looking after the legal matters pertaining to 3 - 4 post offices including Seelampur sub post office. Around one week back, a circular has been issued by Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Krishna Nagar, Delhi whereby the respective Sub Post Offices have been directed to attend their own matters. He has brought a letter dated 09.04.2022 issued by the Sub Post Master, Seelampur post office, Delhi intimating that as per postal manual vol. V, Speed post delivery record preservation period was for 6 months and registered and parcel letter booking and delivery preservation period was for 18 months. It has also been mentioned that SPA and RL record pertaining to the period sought for had been weeded out and the attested copy of register containing the particulars of periods for which records have been weeded out and sent to Jhilmil, Head Post Office, Delhi - 110095 on 08.07.2017 was enclosed. Copy of letter dated 09.04.2022 Ex.R3W3/1 MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 17 (Colly. 6 sheets).
. R3W4-Sh. Yogesh Kumar Singhal, Junior Assistant, District Transport Office, South Zone, Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi - 110013. He has deputed by the District Transport Officer. The DTO had been directed to produce the record of communication received by its office way of registered letters during the period from 16.01.2015 to 31.01.2015. The DTO has sent a compliance report dated 26.04.2022 stating that the office of Regional Transport Office, 3, Tilak Marg, New Delhi - 110001 was shifted to Indraprastha Depot in the year 2004-2005. Thereafter, the office of MLO, I P Estate has been closed w.e.f. 11.08.2021 and the office is being shifted to Sukhdev Vihar, DTC Bus Depot, New Delhi. It has been concluded that record of communication received by way of registered letter pertaining to the period from 16.01.2015 to 31.01.2015 is not traceable at present. The copy of the report is Ex.R3W4/1 (Colly. 5 pages).
. R3W5 - Sh. Sudhir Sharma, Sub - Post Master, Yamuna Vihar, C- Block, Delhi - 110053. He has brought the attested copies pertaining to the disposal of summoned record, being an old record alongwith the auction proceedings, constitution and minutes of meeting of the committee for disposal of old record, weight of Shivam Dharam Kanta Raddi (Waste) paper, deposit slip of auction Raddi (Waste) Paper. The same alongwith covering letter is Ex.R3W5/1 (Colly. 27 pages). In his cross-examination court asked question to witness:
Q. The Postal Department has online tracking system for all the letters which have been booked by it for onward delivery. What is the system for online record for registered letters booked by the department?
A. The witness replied that the present system for online tracking of registered letters was not in vogue for the entire year 2015, including the period when the registered letter had been booked under postal receipt no. A RD 381545088IN dt. 16.01.2015. The software at present is different and it is being administered by TCS (Tata Consultancy Services Ltd) whereas the earlier software was being administered by the department itself. There was no online tracking system under the earlier MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 17 software.
Q. You have not brought the Circular / Notification issued by your department regarding the weeding out of the records?
A. The witness replied that he has brought the attested copy of the compendium on preservation and disposal of records provided to him by Suptd. of Post Offices, Delhi East Division, Delhi-51 and the same has been exhibited at page no. 18 to 27 of Ex.R3W5/1.
The witness further deposed that he was not posted at Yamuna Vihar Post Office on 16.01.2015 when the registered letter under postal receipt no. A RD 381545088IN was booked.
14. RE was closed. Statement of petitioner under clause 29 of MCTAP was recorded. Final arguments addressed by counsel Sh. Dheeraj Kulshreshta on behalf of petitioner and counsel Mr. S. Ghosh, on behalf of insurance company have been heard. Record perused.
15. Now, the insurance company has claimed that they had issued notices to the Owner of offending vehicle as well as to the RTO. R3W1 has proved the issuance of notice to the Owner of offending vehicle Sh. Kamal Singh. The Notice Ex.R3W1/E and its postal receipt is Ex.R3W1/G. However, notice claimed to be issued to the RTO has not been proved. No postal receipts regarding sending such notice has been placed and proved on record. In absence thereof, it cannot be proved that notice was sent to RTO. Now, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dr. Sarjeet Singh Thakur & Ors. in MACA No. 418/2012 decided on 20.04.2012"
directly deals with such a situation. The question involved in the said judgment was also that the cheque of insurance premium got dishonoured and the insurance company claimed that the insured was informed about the same.
16. The Hon'ble High Court in the said judgment also referred to the judgment passed by their own court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Reshmi & Ors." MACA No. 460/2011 decided on 17.01.2012". It MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 17 was held that if the insured is not informed about the dishonour of the cheque, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to the third party as well as to the insured. If the insured is informed about the dishonour of the cheque and an intimation in this regard is also given to the RTO as provided under Section 147(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act (the M. V. Act), the Insurance Company would not be liable to the third party. At the same time, if the insured is informed but no intimation is given to the RTO, the Insurance Company would be liable to the third party with the right of recovery against the insured.
17. In view of settled law on this aspect, since in the present case insurance company has been able to prove that they had informed about the dishonour of the cheque to the insured / owner but could not prove that they had informed about the same to the RTO, they can not escape their liability to pay the compensation amount which shall be awarded by the court. However, they are granted recovery rights to recover the amount paid from the Driver (R-1) and Owner (R-2) of the offending vehicle.
ISSUE No. 3: Relief COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION MEDICAL EXPENSES
18. The patient was initially undergoing treatment at District Hospital, Mathura, UP where she was given first-aid and thereafter, shifted to LNJP Hospital, New Delhi. As per the medical treatment record pertaining to petitioner / injured Ms. Monika has sustained grievous injuries and 87.5% permanent disability in relation to her whole body due to the accident. She has attached the medical bills regarding the expenses incurred by her on medicines and medical treatment including investigations. The medical bills total to Rs.17,500/- (approximately). Hence the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.17,500/- under this head.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
19. In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner / MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 17 injured Ms. Monika sustained grievous multiple injuries and has permanent locomotor disability of 87.5% in relation to her whole body in the accident. The Discharge Summary issued by the Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi and medical bills reflects that the petitioner had multiple visits to the hospitals for her medical treatment. Further Lab investigation reports and tests also show that she had visited there in relation to her treatment. The patient must have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the hospitals as OPD patient for her regular check up & follow up during the period of her medical treatment. Further, she would have also required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner / injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance charges. Further, in view of the above-said grievous injuries suffered by her, the petitioner / injured must have needed special diet for a similar period to have a fast and proper recovery, the petitioner / injured is also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards expenses for special diet.
LOSS OF INCOME
20. In the present case, the petitioner / injured stated that at the time of accident, she was earning about Rs.20,000/- per month but has not filed any documentary evidence in this regard. Neither she has filed any proof regarding her education qualification. She was cross examined on this point wherein she admitted that she does not have any proof regarding her income or educational qualifications. In these circumstances is to be assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages of an 'Unskilled Worker' applicable as on date of accident. It is pertinent to mention herein that on the date of accident i.e. 09.11.2014, the Minimum Wages of an 'Unskilled Worker' were Rs.8632/- per month applicable in Delhi. The same shall be applied in the present case as the petitioner / injured was a Non-Matriculate as well as Un- skilled.
21. The principles for determining functional disability resulting from MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 17 permanent physical impairment have been laid down in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar ((2011) 1 SCC 343). It is noteworthy that extent of physical impairment cannot automatically be taken to be the loss of earning capacity. The nature of avocation in which the petitioner was involved has to be considered.
22. Now in this case the petitioner has suffered permanent disability 87.5% in relation to her whole body. The Doctor, Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sati examined as PW-3 has stated during cross-examination that the petitioner is having no feeling of sensation below shoulder portion of her body. As per the disability certificate Ex.PW-2/1 she is a case of multiple disability and the injury diagnosed is cervical spine injury with 87.5% permanent disability. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has stated that she is totally bed ridden. She has stated in her evidence affidavit that she is completely paralyzed and confined to bed from the date of accident. Obviously, a person who is totally bed ridden due to paralysis cannot do any work / cannot be engaged any kind of avocation. Thus, her functional disability has to be taken to be 100%.
23. Thus, the functional disability of the petitioner is taken to be at 100%.
Further in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017 (13) SCALE 12), the petitioner is also entitled to future prospects. . AGE: The date of accident is 09.11.2014. In the aadhar card of Ms. Monika her year of birth is mentioned as 1994 as per which her age comes out to be about 20 years at the time of accident. Therefore, on the date of accident, the injured was aged about 20 years. In terms of the principles laid down in the case Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (AIR 2009 SC 2104), a multiplier of 18 would be applicable to the present case. Further, she will also be entitled to future prospects @ 40% as she was about 20 years of age at the time of accident and was having fixed salary. Therefore, the loss of future prospects / income is calculated as:
Minimum Wages i.e. Rs.8632/- X 40% Rs.3453/-
(Future Prospects)
Rs.8632/- + Rs.3453/- Rs.12,085/-
MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 17
Rs.12,085/- X 100% (Disability) Rs.12,085/-
Rs.12,085/- X 12 X 18 (Multiplier) Rs.26,10,360/-
24. Hence, the petitioner shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.26,10,360/-
under this head.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
25. The petitioner / injured has deposed that she has spent a sum of Rs.35,000/- on an attendant. Considering the nature of grievous injuries - resulting into permanent disability 87.5% in relation to her whole body extensive treatment and the prolonged recovery period and petitioner must have required the services of attendant for that period.
26. Further, with regard to the attendant charges in future, it is to be noted that the petitioner is totally incapacitated to do even basic things - cannot stand and is totally bed ridden. The doctor examined as PW-2 has deposed that the petitioner is having severe weakness of all 4 limbs (Quadriparisis). Thus, injured would require an attendant throughout her life. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pritam Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. II(2016) ACC 747 (DEL) had held that since the petitioner has been rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 100%, there is no doubt that she would require constant presence of attendant throughout his life. It was further held that in the said circumstances, the proper course would be to take care of attendant charges incurred during treatment and for future on the assumption that he would need to engage an attendant on regular basis. It was further held that expenditure towards this end could be computed on the basis of minimum wages of unskilled worker relevant to the date of accident. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said matter also applied the multiplier commensurate the age of injured.
27. Now the Minimum Wages of an 'Unskilled Worker' on the date of accident i.e. 09.11.2014 were Rs.8632/-. In terms of calculation adopted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pritam Singh (Supra) , the compensation for attendant MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 17 charges would come to Rs.18,64,512/- (Rs.8632 X 12 X 18).
PAIN & SUFFERING
28. As per the settled law, for assessing the pain and suffering, the following factors have to be taken into account:-
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment
In the instant case, the petitioner has suffered 87.5% permanent physical disability renders her as 100% disable person for various jobs and day to day activities of life and also undergoing operation would have caused unimaginable pain and sufferings. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (C) No. 5649-51 of 2012), the petitioner / injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain and suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner / injured cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money as the pain that the injured must have suffered after the accident, having severe weakness of all 4 limbs (Quadriparisis) must have been tremendous. Further the physical pain coupled with the fact that she also lost both parents in the same accident. Thus, the sufferings have been aggravated manifolds. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ankur Kapoor Vs. Oriental Insurance Company SLP No. 4841/2016 decided on 06.11.2017 has granted sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain, agony and trauma in case of amputation of right arm. In the present case there has been permanent disability in relation to her whole body. Hence, in terms of the judgment of Ankur Kapoor (Supra) sum of Rs.3,00,000/- is granted under the head of pain and sufferings.
LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES
29. The petitioner / injured has claimed that she has suffered loss of enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. The petitioner / MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 17 injured was about 20 years old at the time of accident. She has suffered grievous injuries - permanent disability in her whole body which would hinder her daily activities as well as her enjoyment of life. She was unmarried at the time of accident. The permanent disability has shut her marriage prospects as well. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as Ankur Kapoor (Supra), the petitioner / injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities.
30. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
S. HEADS AMOUNT (₹)
No.
A Medicines and Treatment 17,500/-
B Conveyance and Special Diet 30,000/-
C Loss of income (During Treatment and Future) 26,10,360/-
D Attendant Charges (During Treatment and Future) 18,64,512/-
E Pain and Sufferings 3,00,000/-
F Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities 3,00,000/-
Total 51,22,372/-
Rounded to (₹) 51,23,000/-
31. On the basis of above-stated reasoning and calculations, Award is passed in favour of petitioner and against respondents, payable by respondent no. 3, for sum of Rs.51,23,000/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs and Twenty Three Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f.
date of filing of petition till realization. Respondent no.3 is granted recovery rights to recover compensation from Respondent no.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
32. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is permanently disabled, she is of young age and would require money throughout her life time for her sustenance as well as basic needs, I deem it appropriate to keep her amount in FDRs for a longer duration of time so that some amount is regularly MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 17 released in her bank account every three months. Thus, it is hereby directed that out of the amount awarded in favour of petitioner, a sum of Rs.46,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs only) be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.50,000/- each, having maturity date every three months i.e. First FDR of Rs.50,000/- having maturity date after three months of date of deposit, second FDR of Rs.50,000/- having maturity date six months after date of deposit, third FDR of Rs.50,000/- having maturity date after nine months of date of deposit, so on, so forth, having cumulative interest, and the remaining amount with corresponding interest accrued till date be released into his savings bank account.
33. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody and copies of the same be provided to the petitioner with the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount.
(b) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant / his guardian. 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.
(e) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court.
34. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with interest till date with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 17 Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171929; IFSC: UCBA0002078 within 30 days as per above order, failing which respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Further, the insurance company is also directed to inform the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi regarding the deposition of Award amount, if the same is through RTGS / NEFT. Concerned Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch is directed to transfer the share amount of the petitioners in their bank account, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. The Branch Manager, is further directed to keep the said amounts in fixed deposits in name of this Court in auto renewal mode every 15 days, till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques.
35. Soft copy of the award be uploaded on official website of Delhi District Courts i.e. https://delhidistrictcourts.nic.in. Form IV-B and Form-V, in terms of MCTAP, shall be read as part of the Award. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to counsel for the Respondent no.3 for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Intimation of deposit of Award amount be given as per the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Divisional Manager vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913, dated 11.03.2021. Digitally signed by SHUNALI GUPTA SHUNALI Announced in open Court GUPTA Date:
2022.08.06 13:03:52 on this 05 th day of August, 2022 +0530 (SHUNALI GUPTA) PO MACT, NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI MACT No. 14571/15 Ms. Monika Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 17