Rajbala vs Mukesh Chand on 16 August, 2023

[Cites 22, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Rajbala vs Mukesh Chand on 16 August, 2023

         IN THE COURT OF DR. TARUN SAHRAWAT
                  PRESIDING OFFICER
      MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA
             KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

In the matters of:

I). MACT no. 545/2017; Rajbala & Ors. v. Mukesh Chand & Anr.
II). MACT no. 543/2017; Manisha v. Mukesh Chand & Anr.
III). MACT no. 544/2017; Sachin Kumar v. Mukesh Chand & Anr.
IV). MACT no. 546/2017; Nepal Singh v. Mukesh Chand & Anr.
V). MACT no. 547/2017; Rajbala v. Mukesh Chand & Anr.



(I). MACT no. 545/2017

1. Rajbala
   W/o late Sh. Om Prakash
2. Sachin Kumar @ Vikki
   S/o late Sh. Om Prakash
3. Nepal Singh Koli @ Anurag
   S/o late Sh. Om Prakash
   (All legal heirs of deceased Om Prakash)
   All R/o B-1/500, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.
   Also at: B-5/353, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.                  ......Petitioners
versus

1. Mukesh Chand (Driver)
   S/o Sh. Hugan Chand
   R/o Village & PO Kutesra, PS Charthwal,
   Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.
2. Uttar Pradesh Roadways Transport Corporation
   (UPSRTC) (Regd. Owner)
   Through: Regional Manager, Saharanpur,
   Uttar Pradesh.                                              ....Respondents

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 1 of 57 Pages (II). MACT no. 543/2017 Manisha (injured) W/o Sh. Sachin Kumar R/o B-1/500, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.

Also at: B-5/353, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093. ................Petitioner versus

1. Mukesh Chand (driver)

2. UPSRTC (Regd. Owner) (details as given above) ...........Respondents (III). MACT no. 544/2017 Sachin Kumar @ Vikki S/o late Sh. Om Prakash R/o B-1/500, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.

Also at: B-5/353, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093. .............. Petitioner versus

1. Mukesh Chand (Driver)

2. UPSRTC (Regd. Owner) (details as given above) ...........Respondents (IV). MACT no. 546/2017 Nepal Singh Koli @ Anurag (Injured) S/o late Sh. Om Prakash R/o B-1/500, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.

Also at: B-5/353, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093. ...............Petitioner ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 2 of 57 Pages versus

1. Mukesh Chand (Driver)

2. UPSRTC (Regd. Owner) (details as given above) ...........Respondents (V). MACT no. 547/2017 Rajbala (injured) W/o late Sh. Om Prakash R/o B-1/500, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.

Also at: B-5/353, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093. ..............Petitioner versus

1. Mukesh Chand (Driver)

2. UPSRTC (Regd. Owner) (details as given above) ...........Respondents Date of institution : 05.09.2017 Final arguments heard : 16.08.2023 Date of Award : 16.08.2023 AWAR D

1. Vide this common award, I shall decide five claim cases, filed by the claimants/ petitioners seeking compensation under sections 166/140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of Om Prakash (deceased in MACP no.545/17) and injuries to petitioners Manisha, Sachin Kumar, Nepal Singh and Rajbala (injured in MACP nos. 543/17, 544/17, 546/17 & 547/17) occurred in the same motor vehicular accident.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 3 of 57 Pages

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as narrated in the petitions are that on 26.06.2017 at about 06.10 a.m., the deceased Om Prakash along with his wife Rajbala, sons namely Sachin Kumar and Nepal Singh Koli and daughter-in-law Manisha was travelling from Saharanpur to Delhi in a car bearing no. DL8CAP-3345, being driven by his son Sachin Kumar and when they reached at Khatauli Bypass, near Bhaisi Cut, all of a sudden, a bus of UPSRTC (Uttar Pradesh State Road Corporation) bearing no. UP11AT-0097 (in short "offending vehicle"), being driven by respondent no.1 Mukesh Chand at very high speed, rashly and negligently came from behind and hit the car with a great force while overtaking the car from left side. As a result of which, all five occupants of the car i.e. claimants sustained serious injuries. They were removed to Civil Hospital, Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar and then to S.D.S. Global Hospital, Modipuram, Meerut, U.P. for treatment. In connection with the accident, FIR no.784/2017 under sections 279/427/338 IPC was registered at PS Khatauli. Subsequently, one of the injured namely Om Prakash succumbed to injuries in Max Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, during treatment on 05.07.2017. The claimants alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for grant of compensation.

3. On service of notice of the petitions, both the respondents appeared before this Tribunal and filed their joint reply/ written-statement.

3.1 In the joint written-statement filed by respondent no.1 and 2, though they admitted the involvement of the offending vehicle (bus) in the accident but took the defence that the accident occurred due to sole ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 4 of 57 Pages negligence of the victims' car driver. It is stated that when their bus reached near Bhaisi Cut, an unknown vehicle coming from Khatauli side was crossing the Bhaisi Cut and when respondent no.1 tried to save the alleged offending vehicle from that unknown vehicle, in the meantime, car of victims came from behind at a high speed and hit the bus.

4. Upon completion of pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor framed the issues on 28.04.2018 as under:

In MACT no. 545/17 (In re: deceased Om Prakash)

i). Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.

UP11AT-0097 on 26.06.2017 at about 06:10 a.m. at Khatauli Bypass, Bhaisi Cut, Highway, PS Khatauli, District Mujaffar Nagar, U.P. within the jurisdiction of PS Khatauli in rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Om Prakash? OPP

ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.

iii).       Relief.


In MACT no. 543/17 (In re: injured Manisha)

i).         Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.

ii). Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP

iii). Relief ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 5 of 57 Pages In MACT no. 544/17 (In re: injured Sachin Kumar)

i). Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.

ii). Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP

iii). Relief In MACT no. 546/17 (In re: injured Nepal Singh Koli)

i). Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.

ii). Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP

iii). Relief.

In MACT no. 547/17 (In re: injured Rajbala)

i). Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.

ii). Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP

iii). Relief.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 6 of 57 Pages

5. Vide the said order dated 28.04.2018, my learned predecessor consolidated all the five claim cases with the direction that common evidence in all the claim cases would be recorded and kept in the main case MACT no. 545/17 (in re: deceased Om Prakash).

6. In order to establish their cases, the petitioners examined following witnesses.

(i) PW1 Rajbala, wife of deceased Om Prakash (in MACT no. 545/17) testified on the strength of her affidavit Ex.PW1/A regarding the manner of accident in which fatal injuries suffered by her husband, income and occupation of her deceased husband and losses suffered due to death of deceased and relied upon the following documents :-

• Copy of her Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR). • Copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner no.2 Sachin as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).

• Copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner no.3/ Nepal Singh Koli as Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).

• Copies of 10th class and 12th class certificates of deceased Om Prakash, issued by CBSE, as Ex.PW1/4 (OSR). • Medical Bills of injured/ deceased Om Prakash as Ex.PW1/5 (colly).

• Copy of Aadhaar Card of deceased Om Prakash as Ex.PW1/6 (OSR).

• Certified copies of the criminal case record as Ex.PW1/7 (colly).

• Copies of treatment record of deceased as Ex.PW1/8 (colly). ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 7 of 57 Pages • Copies of proceedings w.r.t. Punchnama of deceased Om Prakash and his postmortem report as Ex.PW1/9 (colly). • Original treatment record of deceased Om Prakash as Ex.PW1/10 (colly).

(ii) Smt. Rajbala also examined as PW2, being injured in MACT no.547/17, deposed on the strength of her affidavit Ex.PW2/A regarding the injuries suffered by her in the accident, treatment taken and medical expenses incurred. She relied upon the following documents:

• Copy of her Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW2/1 (OSR). • Her original treatment record as Ex.PW2/2 (colly). • Her original medical bills as Ex.PW2/3 (colly). • Copies of her academic certificates Ex.PW2/4 (colly) (OSR) and Ex.PW2/5 (OSR).

• Copy of treatment record Ex.PW2/6 (colly).

(iii) PW3 Sachin Kumar, the injured in MACT no.544/2017, testified being injured as well as eye-witness of the accident. He deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW3/A and relied upon the following documents:

• Copy of his Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW3/1 (OSR). • His original medical bills and ambulance charges bills as Ex.PW3/2 (colly).

• His original treatment record as Ex.PW3/3. • Copy of his Class-12th Certificate as Ex.PW3/4 (OSR). • Copy of treatment record Ex.PW3/5 (colly).

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 8 of 57 Pages • Copy of his driving license as Ex.PW3/6 (OSR).

(iv) PW4 Nepal Singh Koli, the injured in MACT no. 546/2017, testified being injured as well as eye-witness of the accident. He deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW4/A and relied upon the following documents:

• Copy his Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW4/1 (OSR). • His original medical bills and ambulance charges bills as Ex.PW4/2 (colly).

• His original treatment record as Ex.PW4/3 (colly). • Copy of his Senior School Certificate Exam, issued by CBSE, Delhi as Ex.PW4/4 (OSR) • Copy of treatment record Ex.PW4/5 (colly). • The admit cards for appearing in competitive exams for vacancies in CRPF, SSC, Department of Posts, etc. as PW5/6 (colly).

(v) PW5 Manisha, the injured in MACT no.543/17, testified being injured as well as eye-witness of the accident. She deposed on the strength of her affidavit Ex.PW5/A and relied upon the following documents:

• Copy of her Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW5/1 (OSR). • Her original medical bills as Ex.PW5/2 (colly). • Her original treatment record as Ex.PW5/3 (colly). • Copy of her Senior School Certificate Exam, issued by CBSE, Delhi as Ex.PW5/4 (OSR) • Copy of treatment record Ex.PW5/5 (colly).

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 9 of 57 Pages

(vi) PW6 Dr. I.K. Dhammi, Consultant, Department of Orthopedics, GTB Hospital, Delhi, proved the disability certificate issued to injured Rajbala (in MACT no. 457/17) as Ex.PW6/1 to show that she suffered 17% locomotor disability in relation to her right upper limb.

(vii) PW7 Dr. Shaurabh Kumar Pandey, Senior Resident, Neuro Surgery, GTB Hospital, Delhi, also proved the disability certificate of injured Rajbala to show that she suffered 52% permanent disability in relation to neurology. He also proved the relevant assessment sheet as Ex.PW4/A.

(viii) PW8 Dr. I.K. Dhammi, Consultant, Department of Orthopedics, GTB Hospital, Delhi, proved the disability certificate issued to injured Manisha (in MACT no. 543/2017) as Ex.PW8/A to show that she suffered 20% permanent disability in relation to her right upper limb.

(ix) PW9 Ms. Parvati, w/o Sh. Vanbari Lal, r/o B-5/354, Nand Nagri, Delhi testified with respect to her attendant services provided to injured Rajbala and injured Manisha. She produced her Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW9/1 (OSR).

(x) PW10 Dr. Binod Kalita, Orthopaedic Specialist, Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital, Delhi, proved the disability certificate issued to injured Nepal Singh Koli (in MACT no.546/2017) as Ex.PW10/A to show that he suffered 26% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb.

7. On the other hand, respondents got examined respondent no.1 ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 10 of 57 Pages Mukesh Chand, the driver of offending vehicle as RW1. He deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.RW1/A.

8. The evidence was closed and thereafter, I heard the final arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence and other material placed on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-

ISSUE NO.1 (in all five cases):

9. Issue no.1, being interlinked in all the five cases, shall be decided here together by my common findings. It is the settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.

10. Now coming back to the issue, I may note that the involvement of the offending vehicle is not in dispute in the instant cases as the ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 11 of 57 Pages respondents in their joint written-statement fairly admitted the occurrence of accident with their vehicle but took the defence that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the car of victims. On this aspect, I may observe that the testimony of injured Sachin Kumar (PW3), who is the author of FIR and was driving the car in which his family members i.e. injured Rajbala, Sachin Kumar, Nepal Singh Koli, Manisha and deceased Om Prakash, were travelling, is most relevant to be discussed here. PW3 Sachin Kumar testified that on 26.06.2017 at about 06:10 a.m., he was driving the car bearing no. DL8CAP-3345 at normal speed and on correct side of the road from Saharanpur to his residence at Nand Nagri, Delhi along with his family members and when they reached at Khatauli Bypass, near Bhaisi Cut, Mujaffar Nagar, U.P., a bus of UPSRTC bearing no. UP11AT-0097, being driven by respondent no.1 Mukesh Chand at a very high speed, in rash and negligent manner, came and hit his car with a great force while overtaking it from left side. He further stated that as a result of the forceful impact, he and other family members sitting in the car sustained multiple grievous injuries. They were removed to Govt. Hospital, Khatauli, Mujaffar Nagar, where they were given first aid and their MLCs were prepared and thereafter, they were shifted to SDS Global Hospital, Modipuram, Meerut. He categorically deposed that this accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1.

11. The eye-witness PW3 Sachin Kumar was cross-examined by learned counsel for the respondents. During cross-examination, PW3 stated that he was driving his car at the speed of 50-55 kmph at the right side of the road and that the bus (offending vehicle) was running behind his car at left side. He made it clear that he saw the number of bus after the accident ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 12 of 57 Pages and that he was conscious at the time of accident. Though PW3 was given a suggestion that suddenly one unknown vehicle/ buggi was trying to cross the T-point and seeing that unknown vehicle/ buggi, he could not control his car and hit against the bus but he promptly denied the said suggestion. I find the aspect of rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 remained intact and that testimony of PW3 could not be shattered in any manner during his cross-examination and hence, the same has to be accepted on its face value itself. Further, nothing else is available on record which may suggest any falsity in the oral testimony of PW3.

12. On the other hand, RW1 Mukesh Chand, driver of the offending vehicle stated that when his bus reached at Bhaisi Cut, all of a sudden, an unknown vehicle coming from the Khatauli side, tried to cross the Bhaisi Cut and he was trying to save the said vehicle but in the meantime car of victims came from behind at a high speed in rash and negligent manner and it hit against his bus from right side. I may note that on the one hand, RW1 stated that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of car driver and that he has been falsely implicated in this case but at the same time, during his cross-examination, he admitted to have not filed any complaint before the higher authorities regarding his false implication in this matter. Besides that, he admitted that a criminal case of the said accident is pending against him in Muzaffar Nagar Court. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the respondent no.1 to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by him.

13. Further, it is evident from certified copies of the criminal case ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 13 of 57 Pages record Ex.PW1/6 (colly) that registration number of the offending vehicle finds its clear mention in the FIR itself. Not only this, the respondent no.1 Mukesh Chand has been charge-sheeted under Sections 279/427/338/304-A IPC in the criminal case by the police after detailed investigation and in a motor vehicle accident claim case, the contents of charge-sheet are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of Delhi Motor Accident Tribunal Rules, 2008, which support the testimony of PW3 regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1.

14. Furthermore, the testimony of PW3 on the aspect of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 is also corroborated by documentary evidence brought on record by way of criminal case record Ex.PW1/7 (colly) comprising of FIR, Site Plan, Mechanical Inspection Report of offending vehicle and that of car of victims and charge-sheet, etc.

15. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondents contended that there was a delay of two days in lodging the FIR, therefore, it may be a case of manipulation and afterthought. I do not find strength in this contention as it is evident from the record that all the family members/ victims in this case got injured in the accident and also remained admitted in the hospital for several days after the accident and therefore, they might have not been able to approach the authorities for registration of FIR in the matter. Thus, the plea of non-registration of FIR in time, having no merit, is rejected.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 14 of 57 Pages

16. Thus, the facts that FIR had been registered and charge sheet had also been filed against the respondent no.1 by the police, are sufficient proof to conclude that respondent no.1 was negligent. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as Shabina v. Satvir & Ors. MAC. APP. 980/17 dated 24.01.2020, wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that in so far as FIR has been registered, criminal case has been initiated against driver of offending vehicle and vehicle was seized, the requirement of proving the preponderance of probability of accident having been caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle has been established. In the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Delhi High Court referred to the judgment titled as National Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. (2008) 101 DRJ 645, wherein it was observed:

"12. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal: 2007 (5) SCALE 269. ON perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) Criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A IPC against the driver, (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 15 of 57 Pages and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel of the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of driver."

17. Besides above, the certified copy of the Panchnama Ex.PW1/9 (colly) prepared by the IO clearly reflects that injured Om Prakash died in Max Hospital, Vaishali, U.P. during treatment of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The postmortem report which is part of Ex.PW1/9 (colly) shows that death of deceased Om Prakash was caused due to shock and comma as a result of to antemortem injuries.

18. Further, the treatment record of injured Manisha Ex.5/3 (colly); injured Sachin Kumar Ex.PW3/3 (colly), injured Nepal Singh @ Anurag Ex.PW4/3 (colly) and injured Rajbala Ex.PW2/2 (colly) clearly reflect that they suffered grievous injuries in the accident.

19. Thus, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 and that resulted into death of Om Prakash (in MACT no.545/17) and grievous injuries to petitioners namely Manisha (in MACT no.543/17), Sachin Kumar (in MACT no.544/17), Nepal Singh @ Anurag (in MACT no.546/17) and Rajbala (in MACT no.547/17. Issue no.1 in all the five cases is, accordingly, decided in favour of petitioner(s).

ISSUE NO.2

20. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners in all the cases ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 16 of 57 Pages are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated.

21. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).

COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION In MACT no. 545/2017 (In re: deceased Om Prakash)

22. The present case pertains to the death of deceased Om Prakash. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases

121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. Decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:

"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:

(a) age of the deceased;

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 17 of 57 Pages

(b) income of the deceased; and

These issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:

(i) additions/ deductions to be made for arriving at the income;

(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and

iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.

If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.

19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:

Step-1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balanc expired e which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.

Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 18 of 57 Pages The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.

Step-3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family(multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.

Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.

The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters:-

PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

Medical Expenses:

23. PW1 Rajbala, wife of deceased placed on record the bills with respect to medical expenses incurred on treatment of injuries of deceased prior to his death and proved the same as Ex.PW1/5 (colly). Said bills include IPD bill of Rs.1,15,000/- for the hospitalization period from 26.06.2017 to 04.07.2017, IPD bill of Rs.1,12,006/- with respect of further hospitalization of deceased from 04.07.2017 to 05.07.2017, bills of investigation charges of Rs.23,570/-, pharmacy bill of Rs.42,500/- and bills of ambulance charges for Rs.7,000/-. All these bills are in original and ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 19 of 57 Pages found in order and have also not been challenged by the opposite side.

Therefore, total sum of said bills, amounting to Rs.3,00,076/- is granted to the petitioners under this head.

Age of deceased

24. PW1 Rajbala, wife of deceased proved class 10th certificate of deceased Om Prakash as Ex.PW1/4, which shows the date of birth of deceased as 19.05.1960. Accordingly, the age of deceased on the date of accident (28.06.2017) was 57 years.

Assessment of Income of deceased

25. PW1 testified that her husband Om Prakash (since deceased) was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by imparting tuitions but she did not place on record any document in support of said occupation or income of her deceased husband. However, she proved on record class 10th certificate of deceased to show that he was matriculate. Further, the Aadhaar Card of deceased has been placed on record which shows that he was resident of Delhi. In the circumstances, in absence of any documentary evidence in respect of income of deceased, his income has to be assessed at par with minimum wages applicable to matriculate category in the State of Delhi on the date of accident (28.06.2017), which were Rs.16,468/- per month. Thus, the income of deceased is considered as Rs.16,468/- per month.

Application of Multiplier

26. As held above, deceased was 57 years of age at the time of accident. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 20 of 57 Pages 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:

            MULTIPLIER               AGE GROUP OF DECEASED
            M-18                    Age group between 15 to 20 & 21
                                    to 25 years)
            M-17                    Age group between 26 to 30 yrs
            M-16                    Age group between 31 to 35 yrs
            M-15                    Age group between 36 to 40 yrs
            M-14                    Age group between 41 to 45 yrs
            M-13                    Age group between 46 to 50 yrs
            M-11                    Age group between 51 to 55 yrs
            M-9                     Age group between 56 to 60 yrs
            M-7                     Age group between 61 to 65 yrs
            M-5                     Age group between 66 and above

In view of the above, multiplier of 9 has to be applied against 57 years of age of the deceased to determine the compensation.

Future Prospects

27. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:

"(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 21 of 57 Pages years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

(iv) In case, the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."

28. The deceased can be considered to be a self-employed. In view of the above said judgment, an addition of 10% of the income of deceased (aged between 50 to 60 years) has to be considered towards future prospects.

Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses

29. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under:

Deductions out of earning of the deceased Number of dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th members is 4 to 6 ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 22 of 57 Pages Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six)

30. The instant claim petition has been filed by Smt. Rajbala and her two sons namely Sachin Kumar and Nepal Singh Koli, who were major at the time of accident. Both the sons in their respective claim petitions have claimed that they were earning Rs.20,000/- and Rs.15,000/- per month, respectively. Thus, it is clear that at the time of accident, only the wife of deceased was dependent upon him and therefore, half of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES

31. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.44,000/-, 16,500/- and Rs.16,500/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, the deceased was survived by three legal heirs, therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- (44,000x3+16,500+16,500) under this head.

32. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 23 of 57 Pages S. No. Head Amount Awarded

1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs.16,468/-

2. Add future prospect (B) @ 10% Rs.1,646.80/-

3. Less1/2 towards personal and living Rs.9,057.40/-

expenses of the deceased (C)

4. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.9,057.40/-

(A+B)-C=D

5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.1,08,688.80/-

6. Multiplier (E) 9

7. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE=F) Rs.9,78,199/-

8. Medical expenses (G) Rs.3,00,076/-

9. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) Rs.1,32,000/-

(44,000x3)

10. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.16,500/-

11. Compensation for funeral expenses (K) Rs.16,500/-

12. Total compensation Rs.14,43,275/-

It is observed that vide order dated 28.04.2018, an interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% was awarded to the petitioners and thereafter the said amount was also released, which is required to be adjusted herein. Accordingly, after deducting this amount, the total compensation in the instant matter comes to Rs.13,93,275/- (14,43,275-50,000).

MACT no. 543/2017

(In re: injured Manisha)

33. The present claim petition pertains to injury and scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 24 of 57 Pages Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The relevant extract is as under:

"Broadly speaking 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 is capable of being calculated in terms of money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical 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 upto 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 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, discomfort, disappointment, hardship, frustration and mental stress in life."

34. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:

5. The provisions 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 ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 25 of 57 Pages 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.

6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:

Pecuniary Damages (special damages)

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

(ii) Loss of 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 to 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 ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 26 of 57 Pages 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.

35. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be under the following heads:-

PECUNIARY DAMAGES Medical Expenses

36. Petitioner (PW5) has placed on record hospitalization bill of Rs.98,000/- along with a bill of investigation charges of Rs.1,450/-, issued from SDS Global Hospital, Meerut with respect to treatment of injuries sustained by her in the accident. She has also filed receipt of Rs.2,000/- on the prescription itself, issued by Bajaj Dental & Orthodontic Clinic, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. Besides, a pharmacy bill of Rs.11,760/- has also been placed on record. PW8 has also proved all these bills as Ex.PW5/2 (colly). These bills have been filed in original and are found in order. Also, the same have not been disputed by the respondents. Hence, a total sum of Rs.1,13,210/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.

Special Diet & Conveyance Charges

37. The medical treatment record reflects that immediately after the accident on 26.06.2017, petitioner was taken to CHC Khatauli, Muzaffar Nagar and then to SDS Global Hospital, Meerut, where she remained hospitalized from 26.06.2017 to 30.06.2017. She was found to have suffered fracture of base of first metacarpal as well as supracondylar ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 27 of 57 Pages fracture of humerus. She was also diagnosed to have suffered head injury with fracture of right lower end with mandible fracture. During hospitalization, ORIF with CEP with dental wiring were done on 28.06.2014.

38. Considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment, it can be safely inferred that petitioner had to spend a reasonable amount on special diet for the purpose of early recovery, specially post surgery and for visiting hospitals for further treatment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards special diet and Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance would be just and fair compensation to the petitioner. Hence, a total sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

Attendant Charges

39. PW9 Ms. Parvati that during the treatment of Manisha (injured in this case) and injured Rajbala, she used to accompany them to GTB Hospital and she was being paid Rs.6,000/- per month. However, she fairly admitted that she did not file any receipt to this effect. It is settled law that for claiming compensation under this head, necessity of employing a professional attendant/ care taker is not required and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the family members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver. (Refer :

DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 28 of 57 Pages Loss of earning during treatment

40. The treatment record of petitioner shows that on account of injuries sustained in the accident, she remained hospitalized from 26.06.2017 to 30.06.2017 in SDS Global Hospital, Meerut. She also made further visit to doctor on 21.08.2017 for removal of wire, which was fixed during hospitalization. Keeping in view the head injury, multiple fractures and dental injury suffered by the petitioner in the accident, it may be safely assumed that she might not have been able to resume her work for a period of about two months after the accident and therefore, she is required to be compensated for the said period.

41. As per deposition of petitioner (PW5), at the time of accident, she was doing the work of imparting tuitions. However, no document has been placed on record by her to prove her occupation or income. She placed on record certificate of having passed class 12th from CBSE, Delhi and proved the same as Ex.PW5/4. She also placed on record copy of her aadhaar card to show that she had been residing in Delhi and proved the same as Ex.PW5/1. Thus, in absence of any documentary evidence in support of income of petitioner, her income has to be assessed as that of a matriculate person of Delhi under Minimum Wages Act during the relevant period. The minimum wages for the matriculate category in the State of Delhi on the date of accident i.e. 26.06.2017, were Rs.16,468/- per month and therefore, the income of petitioner at the relevant time may be taken to be Rs.16,468/- per month. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded as a sum of Rs.32,936/- for loss of earning of two months during the period of treatment.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 29 of 57 Pages Loss of Future Earnings Due to Disability

42. In case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India determined the broad criteria for assessment of permanent disability for ascertaining the purpose of future loss of earning and also laid down step by step procedure for assessment of disability and for ascertainment to the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

"9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether 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.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 30 of 57 Pages

10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The tribunal has to first ascertain what activities of the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of 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 so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."

......If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of loosing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore, be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case, there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity taking note of the reduced earning capacity. ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 31 of 57 Pages

13. We may now summarize 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 percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as 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 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."

43. In the instant case, PW8 Dr. I.K. Dhammi, Consultant, Department of Orthopedics, GTB Hospital, Delhi, proved the disability certificate issued to injured Manisha as Ex.PW8/A to show that she suffered 20% permanent disability in relation to her right upper limb and 36% permanent disability in relation to neurology and further, she has been assessed to have suffered overall permanent physical impairment to the ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 32 of 57 Pages extent of 48%. The disablement and loss of earning capacity are two different aspects and not substitute to each other and the loss of income has to be seen considering the profession in which petitioner was engaged at the time of accident. In this case, petitioner has deposed that prior to the accident, she was giving tuitions to the children. Though no specific evidence was led by the petitioner to prove the functional disability in respect of whole body, still considering the overall 48% permanent physical impairment in relation to right upper limb as well with respect to neurology, this Tribunal is of the opinion that said disability would definitely affect the petitioner's work of imparting tuitions to a greater extent and therefore, functional disability in relation to whole body of the petitioner may be considered as 30% for the purpose of assessing corresponding loss of her future income.

44. Law is well settled that there should be no departure from the multiplier method in injury cases also [refer : Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351]. The Aadhaar Card Ex.PW5/1 shows the date of birth of petitioner as 16.11.1989, which would mean that she was 26 years of age on the date of accident (26.06.2017) and thus, multiplier of 17 as applicable to the age group of 26-30 years would be applicable as per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121.

45. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 33 of 57 Pages advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner as a self-employed, below aged 40 years, an addition of income to the extent of 40% towards future prospects has to be counted.

46. As discussed above, the income of petitioner has been assessed to be Rs.16,468/- per month. Thus, applying the multiplier 17 and future prospects @ 40% with 30% loss of income on account of whole body functional disability, the total loss of future income would come to Rs.14,10,978/- [30% of (16,468x140/100x17x12)] and same is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :

Pain & Sufferings

47. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No:

709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:

"12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.

13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:(a) Nature of injury.

(b) Body part affected

(c) Duration of the treatment."

48. In the instant case, petitioner sustained fracture of base of first metacarpal as well as supracondylar fracture of humerus. She was also ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 34 of 57 Pages diagnosed to have suffered head injury with fracture of right lower end with mandible fracture. During hospitalization, ORIF with CEP with dental wiring were done on 28.06.2014. She had to further visit the doctor for removal of dental wire. Keeping in view the head injury, multiple fractures and dental injury suffered by the petitioner, it can be safely inferred that petitioner must have gone through the immense pain and suffering during her treatment. Therefore, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.50,000/- would be just and fair compensation in this case towards pain and suffering same is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

Loss of Amenities

49. It is evident on record that even after completion of treatment petitioner suffered 48% permanent physical impairment in relation to right upper limb as well as with respect to neurology, which has been assessed by this Tribunal as 30% permanent disability in relation to her whole body. It cannot be ignored that with the aforementioned disability, petitioner is bound to face difficulties throughout her life and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. Hence, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.

50. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-

              Sl. No.   Head of compensation                     Amount
                 1.     Medical Expenses                         Rs.1,13,210/-
                 2.     Special Diet & Conveyance Charges        Rs.50,000/-
                 3.     Attendant Charges                        Rs.15,000/-
                        Loss of Earnings                         Rs.32,936/-
                 4.
                        (During Treatment)

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 35 of 57 Pages Loss of Earnings Rs.14,10,978/-

(on account of disability)

6. Pain & Sufferings Rs.50,000/-

7. Loss of Amenities Rs.50,000/-

Total Rs.17,22,124/-

Thus, a total compensation comes to Rs.17,22,124/-.

MACT no. 544/2017

(In re: injured Sachin Kumar) PECUNIARY DAMAGES :

Medical Expenses

51. Petitioner (PW3) has placed on record hospitalization bill of Rs.13,200/- regarding his hospitalization in SDS Global Hospital, Meerut along with a pharmacy bill of Rs.4,327/- and proved the same in his evidence as Ex.PW3/2 (colly). Said bill has been filed in original and is found to be in order. Also, the same has not been challenged by the respondents. Hence, a sum of Rs.17,527/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.

Special Diet & Conveyance Charges

52. Though no bill with respect to special diet has been placed on record, however, considering that petitioner suffered ribs fracture as reflects from his discharge summary Ex.PW3/3 and keeping in view that he remained admitted in hospital for two days, I may assume that he must have spent a nominal amount on special diet for the purpose of early recovery. Further, petitioner has placed on record an invoice of Rs.1,200/-

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 36 of 57 Pages for ambulance charges. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- is granted to the petitioner on account of special diet and conveyance charges.

Loss of earning during treatment

53. The discharge summary Ex.PW3/3 shows that petitioner remained hospitalized for two days only i.e. from 26.06.2017 to 27.06.2017. As per this document, petitioner was not advised any bed rest on being discharged from the hospital. Thus I do not find it appropriate to grant any compensation to the petitioner under this head.

NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :

Pain & Sufferings

54. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No:

709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:

"12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.

13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:(a) Nature of injury.

(b) Body part affected

55. In the instant case, after the accident petitioner remained hospitalized for 2 days i.e. from 26.06.2017 to 27.06.2017 in SDS Global Hospital, Meerut. He was diagnosed to have sustained ribs fracture. On ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 37 of 57 Pages discharge, he was advised to medications for one month. Thus, it can be safely inferred that petitioner must have gone through some pain and suffering during his treatment. Therefore, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.5,000/- would be just and fair compensation for him under this head.

56. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-

               Sl. No.   Head of compensation                    Amount
                1.       Medical Expenses                        Rs.17,527/-
                         Special Diet & Conveyance               Rs.5,000/-
                2.
                         Charges
                3.       Pain & Sufferings                       Rs.5,000/-
                                 Total                           Rs.27,527/-

Thus, a total compensation comes to Rs.27,527/-.

MACT no. 546/2017

In re: Injured Nepal Singh PECUNIARY DAMAGES :

Medical Expenses:

57. The petitioner Nepal Singh (PW4) has placed on record medical bills with respect to the expenses incurred on his treatment and proved the same as Ex.PW4/2 (colly). These bills include hospitalization charges of Rs.1,06,000/- for his hospitalization from 26.06.2017 to 30.06.2017 in SDS Global Hospital, Meerut and pharmacy bills of Rs.17,510/-. Besides, bills of investigation and medicines for a total sum of Rs.2,910/- are also part of ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 38 of 57 Pages Ex.PW4/2 (colly). These bills are in original and found in order. Further, I may note that no challenge was made to the said bills from opposite side during cross-examination of PW4. Therefore, a total sum of these medical bills, amounting to Rs.1,26,420/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

Loss of earning during treatment:

58. A perusal of treatment record Ex.PW4/3 (colly) shows that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, petitioner was initially taken to CHC Hospital, Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar and thereafter, he was taken to SDS Global Hospital, Meerut, where he remained hospitalized from 26.06.2017 to 30.06.2017. He took further treatment in GTB Hospital, where he made numerous visits in the OPD of said hospital till 01.09.2017, as per treatment documents placed on record. Though, it has not been specified in the further treatment record as to when he was declared fit to resume his work, however, considering the nature of injury and period of treatment, it may be safely assumed that petitioner must not have been able to do any work for at least three months after the accident and therefore, he is entitled to be compensated for the said period.

59. Petitioner (PW4) claimed that he was earning by imparting tuitions at his home to the locality children but no document has been placed on record by him to prove his occupation or income. Further, he placed on record copy of his Senior School Certificate Exam, issued by CBSE, Delhi and proved the same as Ex.PW4/4. Further, her Aadhaar Card Ex.PW4/1 makes it clear that he was/is a resident of Delhi. Therefore, the ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 39 of 57 Pages income of petitioner has to be assessed at par with the minimum wages applicable to the matriculate category of Delhi State at the time of accident (26.06.2017), which were Rs.16,468/- per month. Thus, income of petitioner is considered to be Rs.16,468/- per month. Accordingly, petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.49,404/- on account of loss of three months income during treatment.

Loss of Future Earnings Due to Disability

60. In the instant case, PW10 Dr. Binod Kalita, Orthopaedic Specialist, Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital, Delhi, proved the disability certificate issued to injured Nepal Singh Koli as Ex.PW10/A to show that he suffered 26% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. The disablement and loss of earning capacity are two different aspects and not substitute to each other, however, functional disability, thus, has a direct relationship with the loss of limb. Though no specific evidence was led by the petitioner to prove the functional disability in respect of whole body, still considering the overall 26% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb, this Tribunal is of the opinion that said disability would affect the petitioner's work of imparting tuitions to some extent and therefore, functional disability in relation to whole body of the petitioner may be considered as 13% for the purpose of assessing corresponding loss of his future income.

61. Law is well settled that there should be no departure from the multiplier method in injury cases also [refer : Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351]. The documents of Ex.PW4/6 show the date of birth of petitioner as 22.07.1991, which would mean that he was 25 ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 40 of 57 Pages years of age on the date of accident (26.06.2017) and thus, multiplier of 18 as applicable to the age group of 21-25 years would be applicable as per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC

121.

62. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner as a self-employed, below aged 40 years, an addition of income to the extent of 40% towards future prospects has to be counted.

63. As discussed above, the income of petitioner has been assessed to be Rs.16,468/- per month. Thus, applying the multiplier of 18 and future prospects @ 40% with 13% loss of income on account of whole body functional disability, the total loss of future income would come to Rs.6,47,390/- [13% of (16,468x140/100x18x12)] and same is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

Special Diet

64. Though no bill with respect to special diet has been placed on record, however, considering that petitioner suffered multiple rib fractures on right side from 3rd to 7th ribs; displaced fracture in intertrochanteric region in left femur and head injury and remained admitted in hospital from 26.06.2017 to 30.06.2017 and took further treatment in GTB Hospital, ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 41 of 57 Pages where he made number of visits in the OPD till 01.09.2017, I may assume that he must have spent a reasonable amount on special diet for the purpose of early recovery. Thus, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner for special diet charges.

Conveyance Charges

65. Further, petitioner has placed on record two payment receipts of ambulance charges, for a total sum of Rs.6,200/- (Rs.1,200/-+ Rs.5,000/-). Considering that petitioner's further treatment continued till 01.09.2017 in OPD of GTB Hospital, Delhi, it cannot be ignored that he had to spend a reasonable amount on transportation for visiting hospitals during his further treatment apart from the above ambulance charges. Thus, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is granted to the petitioner for conveyance charges.

Attendant Charges

66. It is settled law that for claiming compensation under this head, necessity of employing a professional attendant/ care taker is not required and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the family members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver. (Refer : DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :

Pain & Sufferings

67. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 42 of 57 Pages Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No:

709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:

"12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.

13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:(a) Nature of injury.

(b) Body part affected

(c) Duration of the treatment."

68. In the instant case, petitioner suffered multiple rib fractures on right side from 3rd to 7th ribs; displaced fracture in intertrochanteric region in left femur and head injury and remained admitted in hospital for five days i.e. from 26.06.2017 to 30.06.2017 and his further treatment also continued in OPD of GTB Hospital. Thus, it can be safely inferred that petitioner must have gone through immense pain and suffering during his treatment. Therefore, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.25,000/- would be just and fair compensation for him under this head.

Loss of Amenities

69. It is evident on record that even after completion of treatment, petitioner suffered 26% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb, which has been assessed by this Tribunal as 13% permanent disability in relation to her whole body. It can be safely assumed that with the aforementioned disability, petitioner is bound to face difficulties throughout his life and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. Hence, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 43 of 57 Pages

70. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-

              Sl. No. Head of compensation                       Amount
                 1.   Medical Expenses                           Rs.1,26,420/-
                      Loss of Earnings                           Rs.49,404/-
                 2.
                      (During Treatment)
                      Loss of Earnings                           Rs.6,47,390/-
                 3.
                      (on account of disability)
                 4.   Special Diet                               Rs.25,000/-
                 5.   Conveyance Charges                         Rs.20,000/-
                      Attendant Charges                          Rs.10,000/-
                 6.   Pain & Sufferings                          Rs.25,000/-
                 7.   Loss of Amenities                          Rs.25,000/-
                                 Total                           Rs.9,28,214/-

Thus, a total compensation comes to Rs.9,28,214/-.

MACT no. 547/2017

(In re: Injured Rajbala) PECUNIARY DAMAGES :

Medical Expenses

71. The petitioner Rajbala has placed on record bills with respect to the expenses incurred on her treatment and proved the same as Ex.PW2/3 (colly). These bills include hospitalization charges of Rs.1,05,000/- for her hospitalization from 26.06.2017 to 04.07.2017 in SDS Global Hospital, Meerut along with pharmacy bills of Rs.22,450/-. Besides, bills of investigation and medicines for a total sum of Rs.13,005/- and bill of Rs.2,513/-, dated 04.07.2017, raised by Max Hospital, Vaishali are also part of Ex.PW2/3 (colly). These bills are in original and found in order. Further, ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 44 of 57 Pages I may note that no challenge was made to the said bills from opposite side during cross-examination of PW2. Therefore, a total sum of these medical bills, amounting to Rs.1,42,968/- (1,05,000+22,450+13,005+2,513/) is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

Loss of earning during treatment:

72. A perusal of treatment record Ex.PW2/3 (colly) shows that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, petitioner was initially taken to CHC Hospital, Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar and thereafter, she was taken to SDS Global Hospital, Meerut, where she remained hospitalized from 26.06.2017 to 04.07.2017. She took further treatment in GTB Hospital, where she made numerous visits in the OPD of said hospital till 07.10.2018, as per treatment documents placed on record. Though, it has not been specified in the further treatment record as to when she was declared fit to resume her work, however, considering the nature of injury and period of treatment, it may be safely assumed that petitioner must not have been able to do any work for at least one year after her accident and therefore, she is entitled to be compensated for the said period.

73. Petitioner (PW2) claimed that she was earing Rs.18,000/- per month by imparting tuitions at her home to the locality children but she did not place on record any supporting document to prove the same. However, she placed on record copy of certificate of having passed High School Exam and proved the same as Ex.PW2/4. Further, her Aadhaar Card Ex.PW1/1 makes it clear that she was/is a resident of Delhi. Therefore, the income of petitioner has to be assessed at par with the minimum wages ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 45 of 57 Pages applicable to the matriculate category of Delhi State at the time of accident (26.06.2017), which were Rs.16,468/- per month. Thus, income of petitioner is considered to be Rs.16,468/- per month. Accordingly, petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.1,97,616/- on account of loss of one year income during treatment.

Loss of Future Earnings Due to Disability:

74. In the instant case, PW6 Dr. I.K. Dhammi, Consultant, Department of Orthopedics, GTB Hospital, Delhi, proved the disability certificate issued to injured Rajbala as Ex.PW6/1, which shows that she suffered 17% permanent disability in relation to right upper limb and 52% permanent disability in relation to neurology. Thus, she suffered overall permanent physical impairment to the extent of 59%. The disablement and loss of earning capacity are two different aspects and not substitute to each other and the loss of income has to be seen considering the profession in which petitioner was engaged at the time of accident. In this case, petitioner has deposed that prior to the accident, she was giving tuitions to the children. Though no specific evidence was led by the petitioner to prove the functional disability in respect of whole body, still considering the overall 59% permanent physical impairment in relation to right upper limb as well with respect to neurology, this Tribunal is of the opinion that said disability would definitely affect the petitioner's work of imparting tuitions to a greater extent and therefore, functional disability in relation to whole body of the petitioner may be considered as 35% for the purpose of assessing corresponding loss of her future income.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 46 of 57 Pages

75. Law is well settled that there should be no departure from the multiplier method in injury cases also [refer : Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351]. The Aadhaar Card Ex.PW1/1 shows the date of birth of petitioner as 01.01.1961, which would mean that she was 56 years of age on the date of accident (26.06.2017) and thus, multiplier of 9 as applicable to the age group of 51-56 years would be applicable as per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121.

76. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner as a self-employed, belonging to the age group of 50-60, an addition of income to the extent of 10% towards future prospects has to be counted.

77. As discussed above, the income of petitioner has been assessed to be Rs.16,468/- per month. Thus, applying the multiplier 9 and future prospects @ 10% with 35% loss of income on account of whole body functional disability, the total loss of future income would come to Rs.6,84,739/- [35% of (16,468x110/100x9x12)] and same is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

Special Diet

78. Though no bill with respect to special diet has been placed on record, however, considering that petitioner suffered multiple injuries in the ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 47 of 57 Pages accident and remained hospitalized from 26.06.2017 to 04.07.2017 and thereafter also, remained under OPD treatment for a long period till 07.10.2018 as per further treatment papers placed on record, I may assume that she must have spent a reasonable amount on special diet for the purpose of early recovery. Thus, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the petitioner for special diet charges.

Conveyance Charges

79. Further, petitioner has placed on record two payment receipts of ambulance charges, for a total sum of Rs.2,200/- (Rs.1,000/-+ Rs.1,200/-). Considering that petitioner's further treatment continued till 07.10.2018 in OPD of GTB Hospital, Delhi, it cannot be ignored she had to spend a reasonable amount on transportation for visiting hospitals during her further treatment apart from the above ambulance charges. Thus, a sum of Rs.35,000/- is granted to the petitioner for conveyance charges.

Attendant Charges

80. PW9 Ms. Parvati that during the treatment of Manisha (injured in this case) and injured Rajbala, she used to accompany them to GTB Hospital and she was being paid Rs.6,000/- per month. However, she fairly admitted that she did not file any receipt to this effect. It is settled law that for claiming compensation under this head, necessity of employing a professional attendant/ care taker is not required and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the family members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver. (Refer :

DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). Therefore, considering the nature ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 48 of 57 Pages of injuries sustained by the petitioner and period of treatment, a sum of Rs.35,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :

Pain & Sufferings

81. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No:

709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:

"12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.

13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:(a) Nature of injury.

(b) Body part affected

(c) Duration of the treatment."

82. In the instant case, petitioner suffered hemorrhagic and non- hemorrhagic contusions in bilateral frontoparietal region, right temporal region, distal body and splenium of corpus callosum; Foci of intraventriicular bleed in bilateral ventricle with fracture of right clavicle and small hemorrhagic contusion in right frontal lobe and remained hospitalized for 8 days i.e. from 26.06.2017 to 04.07.2017 and thereafter also, her treatment continued. Thus, it can be safely inferred that petitioner must have gone through immense pain and suffering during her treatment.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 49 of 57 Pages Therefore, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would be just and fair compensation for him under this head.

Loss of Amenities

83. It is evident on record that even after completion of treatment, petitioner suffered 17% permanent disability in relation to her right upper limb and 52% permanent disability in relation to neurology and thus, she suffered overall permanent physical impairment to the extent of 59%, which has been assessed by this Tribunal as 35% permanent disability in relation to her whole body. It can be safely assumed that with the aforementioned disability, petitioner is bound to face difficulties throughout her life and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.

84. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-

              Sl. No.   Head of compensation                     Amount
                 1.     Medical Expenses                         Rs.1,42,968/-
                        Loss of Earnings                         Rs.1,97,616/-
                 2.
                        (During Treatment)
                        Loss of Future Earnings                  Rs.6,84,739/-
                 3.
                        (on account of disability)
                 4.     Special Diet                             Rs.40,000/-
                 5.     Conveyance Charges                       Rs.35,000/-
                        Attendant Charges                        Rs.35,000/-
                 6.     Pain & Sufferings                        Rs.1,00,000/-
                 7.     Loss of Amenities                        Rs.1,00,000/-
                                    Total                        Rs.13,35,323/-

Thus, a total compensation comes to Rs.13,35,323/-.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 50 of 57 Pages INTEREST ON AWARDS

85. Petitioner(s) in all the five cases shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of accident till realization.

LIABILITY

86. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. It is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and respondent no.1 was driving it as an employee on behalf of respondent no.2 and accident had taken place during the course of employment of respondent no.1. In view of above, it is held that respondent no.2 (UPSRTC, Regional Manager, Saharanpur, U.P) shall be entitled to pay the compensation to petitioner(s) in all the five claim cases.

RELIEF MACT no. 545/2017 (In re: deceased Om Prakash)

87. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.13,93,275/- (Rs. Thirteen Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Five Only) to the petitioners along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of accident till realization to be paid by the respondent no.2 (UPSRTC). Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 51 of 57 Pages Apportionment and Disbursement of Award Amount

88. The deceased was survived by his wife and two sons, who are petitioners herein. The award amount of Rs.13,93,275/- along with interest thereon shall be shared by the petitioners, as follows:

Petitioner Name of Petitioner Share in Award Amount No. (Rs.)

1. Rajbala Rs.10,00,000/-

                        (wife of deceased)           along     with    respective
                                                     interest amount
                2.      Sachin Kumar @ Vikki         Rs.1,96,638/-
                        (son of deceased)            along     with    respective
                                                     interest amount
                3.      Nepal Singh Koli         @ Rs.1,96,637/- along with
                        Anurag                     respective interest amount
                        (son of deceased)

89. Manager, UCO Bank is directed to release the entire share amount of petitioner no.2 and 3 by way of transferring the said amount into their respective MACT Saving Bank Account, immediately after the same is deposited.

90. Further, Manager, UCO Bank is directed that the entire share of petitioner no.1/ Rajbala, amounting to Rs.10 lakhs shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) of equal amount for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Otheres v. Jaibir Singh & Others.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 52 of 57 Pages

91. The amount of aforesaid FDRs on maturity would be released in the MACT saving bank account of petitioner no.1 without any further orders to that effect.

RELIEF MACP no.543/2017 (In re: injured Manisha)

92. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.17,22,124/- (Rs. Seventeen Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand One Hundred Twenty Four Only) to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of accident till realization to be paid by the respondent no.2 (UPSRTC). Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.

Disbursement of Award Amount

93. A sum of Rs.4,22,124/- along with interest on this amount is directed to be released into the MACT Saving Bank Account of the petitioner Manisha and remaining amount of Rs.13,00,000/- along with interest thereon is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 100 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) to be prepared in the name of petitioner, payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 84/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 53 of 57 Pages

94. The amount of FDRs on maturity would directly be released automatically in petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account.

RELIEF MACT no. 544/2017 (In re: injured Sachin Kumar)

94. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.27,527/- (Rs. Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Seven Only) to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of accident till realization to be paid by the respondent no.2 (UPSRTC).

Disbursement of Award Amount

95. Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, is directed to release the entire award amount along with the interest thereon to the petitioner Sachin Kumar by way of transferring the same into his MACT Saving Bank account, immediately after the same is deposited.

RELIEF MACT no. 546/2017 (In re: injured Nepal Singh)

96. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.9,33,214/- (Rs. Nine Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred Fourteen Only) to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of accident till realization to be paid by the respondent no.2 (UPSRTC). Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 54 of 57 Pages Disbursement of Award Amount

97. A sum of Rs.3,33,214/- along with the interest on the said amount is directed to be released into the MACT Saving Bank Account of the petitioner Nepal Singh and remaining amount of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest thereon is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 60 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) to be prepared in the name of petitioner, payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 60 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 84/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.

98. The amount of FDRs on maturity would directly be released automatically in petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account.

RELIEF MACT no. 547/2017 (In re: injured Rajbala)

99. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.13,35,323/- (Rs. Thirteen Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Three Only) to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of accident till realization to be paid by the respondent no.2 (UPSRTC). Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.

________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 55 of 57 Pages Disbursement of Award Amount

100. A sum of Rs.3,35,323/- along with the interest on this amount is directed to be released into the MACT Saving Bank Account of the petitioner Nepal Singh and remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest on this amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 80 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) to be prepared in the name of petitioner, payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 80 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 84/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others. The amount of FDRs on maturity would directly be released automatically in petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account.

Direction to UPSRTC (Regional Manager, Saharanpur, U.P)

101. The respondent no.2 (UPSRTC) is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. The respondent no.2 (UPSRTC) is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner(s)/ counsel.

Direction to the Petitioner(s)

102. The petitioner(s) shall open a saving bank account near the place of his resident. Further, the bank of petitioner is directed to comply with the following conditions:

(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 56 of 57 Pages i.e., the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).

(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).

(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.

(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.

(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.

(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.

(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) 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 and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.

103. With these observations, all five claim petitions are disposed of. Files be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open Court Court on 16.08.2023 (Dr. Tarun Sahrawat) Presiding Officer-MACT (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ________________________________________________________________________________ MACT nos. 543/17, 544/17, 545/17, 546/17 & 547/17 57 of 57 Pages

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Rajbala vs Mukesh Chand on 16 August, 2023