Delhi District Court
Sonu vs Gurpreet Singh And Ors on 13 February, 2025
MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 662/19
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-011721-2019
Sh. Sonu,
S/o Sh. Brahm Singh,
R/o. Village Milk,
Murad Nagar,
Ghaziabad,
UP.
(Injured)
..........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Gurpreet Singh,
S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh,
R/o Room No. 81,
Lower Camp,
PKT-14,
Near Singhu Border,
Narela, Delhi.
(Driver)
2. M/s. B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd.
1308/9, Nehru Place, Kundli Sonipat,
Haryana.
(Registered Owner)
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Branch Office at 312701,
Akash Cinema Complex,
Mohna Road Ballabhgarh,
Haryana.
(Insurer)
............Respondents
Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 1 of 29
MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 Date of Institution : 28.11.2019 Date of Arguments : 11.02.2025 Date of Judgment : 13.02.2025 APPEARENCES:
Sh. Manak Chand, Ld. Counsel for petitioner. None for driver and owner(defence struck off vide order dated 09.03.2021).
Sh. Amit Kumar Mittal, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. The present petition has been filed U/s 166 & 140 M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs. 80,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present claim petition till its realization on account of injuries suffered by petitioner Sonu (aged 22 years) in road traffic accident in question which occurred on 26.05.2019.
2. The concise material facts relevant to decide the present claim petition as averred are that on 26.05.2019 at about 4:30 PM, petitioner Sonu was going on motorcycle bearing no. HR60J-7459 which was being driven by him at normal speed. When he reached at BG Shirke Company, Pocket
-13, Narela, Singhu Border, Delhi, suddenly offending vehicle i.e. Open Body Truck bearing registration no. HR69C-6157 which was driven by respondent no. 1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without blowing any horn, came in a zigzag manner and hit the aforesaid motorcycle of Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 2 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 petitioner, due to which he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He was immediately taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 2611. A case U/s 279/338 IPC was registered at PS. Narela, vide FIR No. 199/19 with regard to the accident in question. The petitioner has claimed that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of aforementioned offending vehicle which was allegedly being driven by respondent no.1/driver, owned by M/s. B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd and was duly insured with respondent no. 3/New India Assurance Co. Ltd., at the time of accident in question.
3. The respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e., driver and registered owner have failed to file their WS despite grant of sufficient time and opportunities. Consequently, their defence was struck off vide order dated 09.03.2021.
4. In its written statement, the respondent no. 3/insurance company has claimed that offending vehicle was Goods Carrier-Transport (Gross Weight 25000 Kgs) and the driving licence of driver/respondent no. 1 was issued for the category of LMV Cab and thus, he was not authorized to drive Carrier - Transport vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. However, it has been admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it at the time of accident in the name of respondent no. 2. On merits, it has denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.
Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 3 of 29MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025
5. From the pleadings of the parties and the documents, the following issues were framed vide order dated 09.03.2021:-
1) Whether the injured Sh. Sonu suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 26.05.2019 at about 4:30 pm at M/s. B.G. Shirke Company, Pocket - 13, Narela Singhu Border to Mata Mansha Devi Marg, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Narela, due to rashness and negligence on the part of driver Sh. Gurpreet Singh who was driving the vehicle bearing registration no. HR-69C-6157, owned by M/s. B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt.
Ltd. and insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd?OPP.
2) Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP.
3) Relief.
6. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner has examined two witnesses i.e. himself as PW-1 and PW2 Dr. Pramod Kumar and his evidence was closed vide order dated 30.05.2023. On the other hand, the respondent no. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner have not examined any witness. However, insurance company/respondent no. 3 has examined two witnesses i.e., R3W1 Sh. Rahul Verma, Assistant Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and R3W2 Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Clerk, Regional Transport Officer, Gurudaspur, Punjab and its evidence was closed vide order dated 19.07.2024.
Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 4 of 29MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025
7. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR/claim petition, evidence led by parties has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon & proved considered. Arguments addressed by respective counsels considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding applicable precedents, has been appreciated. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 18. The onus to prove, the aforesaid issue was placed on the petitioner. To prove the said issue, petitioner/injured examined himself as PW1 by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A). In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), injured/petitioner has deposed on the lines of averments made in the claim petition. He has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Original discharge slip of LNJP Ex.PW1/1(Colly) Hospital
2. Original discharge slip of LNJP Ex.PW1/2(Colly) Hospital
3. OPD Cards and treatment record of Ex. PW1/3 (colly) various hospitals
4. Original medical bills total Ex. PW1/4(colly) amounting to Rs. 4,458/-
5. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/5(OSR)
6. DAR Ex. PW1/6(Colly) Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 5 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025
9. PW1 (injured himself) in his testimony by way of affidavit (PW1/A) has deposed on the lines of claim petition and has stated that on 26.05.2019 at about 4:30 PM, he was going on motorcycle bearing no. HR60J-7459 which was being driven by him at normal speed. He further deposed that when he reached at BG Shirke Company, Pocket -13, Narela, Singhu Border, Delhi, suddenly offending vehicle i.e. Open Body Truck bearing registration no. HR69C-6157 which was driven by respondent no. 1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without blowing any horn, came in a zigzag manner and hit his aforesaid motorcycle, due to which he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He was immediately taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 2611.
10. During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for insurance company, PW1 admitted that he was not having any driving licence at the time of accident while he was driving the motorcycle.
11. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 that the respondents could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross-examination and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross- examination. Even otherwise, PW1 himself is the injured having sustained injuries due to the accident in question. Moreover, the copy of said FIR (which is part of DAR), would show that same was registered on 26.05.2019 on the basis of GD Entry No. 078A with regard to accident call received in PS. Narela on 26.05.2019. Copy of said FIR alongwith copy of chargesheet Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 6 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 (which are part of criminal case record) would show that FIR was registered on the date of accident itself i.e. 26.05.2019. Thus, FIR was registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondents and / or false involvement of offending vehicle at the instance of petitioner.
12. Apart from above, copy of MLC (which is part of DAR) of injured prepared at SRHC Hospital, shows that he had been removed to said hospital on 26.05.2019 at about 4:35 pm with alleged history of RTA. On his local examination, he was found to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents including insurance company.
13. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence, material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Gurpreet Singh has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s. 279/338 IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
14. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 7 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that he has sustained grievous injuries in the Motor Vehicular Accident which has occurred on 26.05.2019 at about 4:30 pm at M/s. B.G. Shirke Company, Pocket - 13, Narela Singhu Border to Mata Mansha Devi Marg, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. TATA ACE bearing No. DL-1LS-6830 by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 216. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 8 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
17. It has been duly established that petitioner sustained injuries as per his MLC in the road accident which took place on 26.05.2019 at about 4:30 pm at M/s. B.G. Shirke Company, Pocket - 13, Narela Singhu Border to Mata Mansha Devi Marg, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
18. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009) 6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held as under:
"16. "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 9 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation..."
19. These guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been held:-
"10. The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages....."Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 10 of 29
MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025
11. The general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries".
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in further development of the legal position for grant of reasonable and fair compensation, has pronounced guiding parameters that "the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance". Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The golden principles for assessment of adequate compensation to victims of road accident have been appreciated by the full bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., wherein it has been held:-
".....The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well expected norm that money can not substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum....."
21. Accordingly, the entitlement of petitioner to just compensation is being assessed in the background of well settled parameters and guidelines as discussed herein-above.
Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 11 of 29MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 MEDICAL EXPENSES
22. The petitioner has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, he was taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 2611. He further deposed that he had suffered grievous injuries in the accident. He further deposed that he was admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital on 26.05.2019 and was discharged on 13.06.2019. He further deposed that he was again admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital on 27.06.2016 and discharged on 05.08.2019. He further deposed that after discharge from Lok Nayak Hospital, he was continuously taking treatment as OPD patient from various hospital. He further deposed that he had spent Rs.4,633/- on his medical treatment. For this, he has relied upon medical bills amounting to Rs. 4458/- as Ex. PW1/4(colly). During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for insurance company, he admitted that he had not filed any document to show that he remained bed ridden for ten months.
23. It is relevant to note that the injured has relied upon medical bills (which are part of Ex. PW1/4 colly) to the tune of Rs. 4458/-. It is quite evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry. They have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4,458/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 12 of 29MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 LOSS OF INCOME
24. PW1 has deposed that he was 22 years of age; he was doing private job as a Security Guard and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. He further deposed that he remained bed ridden for about 10 months due to grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident and thus, lost his earning for the said period. During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for insurance company, he deposed that at the time of accident, he was working as a Security Guard. He denied the suggestion that he was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/- at the time of accident. He volunteered that he was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- at the time of accident by working as Security Guard. He admitted that he had not filed any documentary record to show that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month at the time of accident. He further deposed that he was working at M/s. CIRCA Construction Company at Narela Industrial Area on the date of accident. He further deposed that he used to get his salary in cash.
25. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for injured argued that due to the injuries suffered by him, he could not work for 10 months and thus, he has suffered loss of income and as such, appropriate compensation be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
26. The treatment record i.e., Discharge Summary of Lok Nayak Hospital (Ex. PW1/1), of petitioner shows that he was admitted in the said Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 13 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 hospital on 26.05.2019 and was discharged on 13.06.2019. Further, petitioner was again admitted in the aforesaid hospital on 27.06.2019 and was discharged on 05.08.2019. As per the treatment record, petitioner had suffered fracture B/L superior and inferior pubic rami and left navicular fracture with fracture left half of sacral a/a with L4-L5 & L5-S1. He had also filed the OPD cards of the said hospital which are part of Ex. PW1/3. In the absence of any definite evidence being brought on record showing the actual period till which the petitioner had received medical treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to accident in question, it would necessarily involve some guess in assessing the loss of income. It can not be overlooked that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in his treatment record due to the accident. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at least for a period of 6 months or so including his recovery period.
27. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for petitioner fairly conceded that for want of any cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioner regarding his monthly income, his income may be considered as per Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of Delhi in order to calculate the loss of income as he was working in Delhi at the time of accident. He vehemently argued that petitioner was working as a Security Guard in a construction company at Narela Industrial Area, Delhi at the time of accident.
Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 14 of 29MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025
28. It may be noted here that no definite evidence whatsoever has been brought on record to prove monthly income of injured/petitioner at the time of accident in question. The petitioner has also failed to file his educational qualification documents. No evidence has been brought by the petitioner that he was working as Security Guard at Narela Industrial Area, Delhi at the time of accident. It may be noted here that during the investigation, IO of the case has verified that petitioner was working and earning in Delhi at the time of accident. Even otherwise, from the perusal of statements recorded u/s. 161 Cr. P.C of witnesses reveals that petitioner/injured was working in Delhi at the time of accident. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am in agreement with the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for petitioner that petitioner was working and earning in Delhi at the time of accident. Accordingly, minimum wages of an unskilled person applicable in State of Delhi is being taken for calculation of loss of income. The minimum wages of an unskilled person were Rs. 14,468/- per month as on the date of accident which is 26.05.2019. Thus, a sum of Rs. 86,808/- (Rs. 14,468/- x 6) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
29. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non- pecuniary heads, guidance is derived from ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as " Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, has been held as under:-
Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 15 of 29MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 "15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose of anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of decision:
2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-"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. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment."
30. As already considered, the petitioner required treatment for a considerable period from the date of accident and remained incapacitated to resume his work of earnings for at least a period of 6 months owing to grievous injuries suffered in the road traffic accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 19% in relation to his left lower limb. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 16 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 petitioner, duration of treatment and permanent disability suffered by him, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- is considered reasonable towards pain & sufferings.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
31. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 19% in relation to his left lower limb. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by him and his continued treatment for considerable period and the permanent disability suffered by him, I award a notional sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
32. It is further claimed that petitioner has spent considerable amount on his special diet, conveyance and attendant. It is relevant to note here that the petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the amount, if any spent on special diet, conveyance and attendant as aforesaid by him. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 19% in Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 17 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 relation to his left lower limb. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. There is no definite quantum of the expenses that has been proved by the claimant through any bills, transport expenses or receipts from any attendant. However, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is considered reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 20,000/-each for special diet, conveyance charges and attendant charges to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
33. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 19% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. Same is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 01.09.2023 (Ex. PW2/1) of Medical Board of Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi.
34. As per the testimony of PW2 Dr. Pramod Kumar, Medical Officer, Orthopedic, BSA Hospital, Delhi, the petitioner was found to have suffered 19% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. He deposed that the aforesaid Medical Board assessed the disability of the Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 18 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 patient to be permanent in nature which is not likely to improve. He had also brought the assessment chart with disability evaluation details and exhibited the same as Ex. PW2/2. He further deposed that due to aforesaid disability suffered by the petitioner, he would have difficulty in walking on slope, in climbing stairs, in taking turns and in cross-leg sitting. During his cross- examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he could not tell the functional disability of the injured in relation to whole body. He denied the suggestion that the disability suffered by injured has no co-relation with the injuries as mentioned in the MLC of injured due to the accident in question. He further denied the suggestion that the disability of the aforesaid patient has not been assessed by Disability Board as per guidelines laid down by Ministry of Human Resource and Social Welfare or that disability certificate Ex. PW2/1 has been issued without properly examining the aforesaid patient or merely at his instance.
35. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was working as a Security Guard at the time of accident. It is further argued that since the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 19% in relation to his left lower limb, he would never be able to work as Security Guard as his avocation involves proper movement of his all limbs and thus, the loss of earning capacity be taken as 100% in relation to whole body.
36. In case titled "Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P State Road, Civil Appeal Nos. 9070-9071 of 2022, decided on Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 19 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 09.12.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold in para no. 16 as under:-
xxxx "16. The Appellant herein has suffered permanent disability of 70% and has an amputated right lower limb amongst other injuries. The High Court has wrongly taken the view that the Appellant has only suffered 35% functional disability. The Appellant is not a salaried person but is self-employed who manages his business. For the Appellant to be able to augment his income, he is most definitely required to move around. The Appellant can also not drive on his own, which hinders his mobility further. This proves that the functional disability of the Appellant will severely impact his earning capacity, and the 35% functional disability calculated by the High Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case and in our view the loss of future earning capacity must be calculated at 60%."
Xxxxx
37. With regard to assessment of functional disability in the accident cases, I am guided by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., CIVIL APPEAL NO.8981 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10383 of 2007) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to held as under:
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 the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 20 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. 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 left 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.
38. Now coming back to the facts of present case it is noted that as per the case of petitioner, he was working as a Security Guard at the time of accident and he has suffered 19% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. PW-2 Dr. Pramod Kumar, Medical Officer, Orthopedic, Dr. BSA Hospital has deposed that the disability of the petitioner is permanent in nature and same is not likely to improve. It is pertinent to mention here that Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 21 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 any type of work requires physical dexterity in limbs and digits to operate hand and power driven tools and equipment commonly used in the profession of fabrication, physical ability to lift, carry and ability to continually walk, stand, climb, stoop, bend, kneel, reach in all directions, etc. It may be noted here that from the documents filed on record by the IO at the time of filing of DAR, it is clear the petitioner was working as Security Guard at the time of accident. It is quite obvious that for any profession, proper movement of both lower limbs are very necessary which is not possible in the case of petitioner due to the permanent disability suffered by him in the accident. The petitioner has suffered 19% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb, which is going to adversely affect his avocation. It is also relevant to mention here that as per the disability certificate, the case of petitioner was post traumatic right B/L hip stiffness with left ankle stiffness. In view of case (supra), I am of the considered opinion that due to disability suffered(permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb) in the present accident, the work efficiency of the petitioner will definitely affected to a great extent as in his avocation of Security Guard, lower limbs play a vital role. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner, his functional disability is taken as 12% with regard to whole body.
39. In copy of Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW1/5) of petitioner, his date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1993. The date of accident is 26.05.2019. Thus, the petitioner was aged about 26 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 22 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 appropriate multiplier would be 17 in view of judgment passed in case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. The monthly income of petitioner has been taken as Rs. 14,468/- per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 1,736.16p (Rs. 14,468/- x 12/100). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 4,95,847.29p (Rs. 1,736.16p x 12 x 140/100 x 17). Thus, a sum of Rs. 4,95,847.29p is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 4,458/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 86,808/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 75,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 50,000/-
enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 60,000/-
attendant charges
6. Loss of future income Rs. 4,95,847.29p Total Rs. 7,72,113.29p Rounded off Rs. 7,72,000/-
40. This brings me down to the next question as to whether insurance company has been able to prove the statutory defence raised by it in its written statement, wherein it has claimed that respondent no. 1 was not having valid driving licence for the category of vehicle involved in the Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 23 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 accident in question at the time of accident in question. In order to substantiate the said plea, the insurance company has examined Sh.Rahul Verma, Assistant Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited as R3W1. Said witness has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. R3W1/A) that DL No. PB-0620170142756 issued in the name of Sh. Gurpreet Singh/R-1 was issued for LMV-Cab and offending vehicle involved in the accident was Goods Carrier-Transport and thus, the driver/respondent no. 1 was not authorize to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident. He has relied upon copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/1; copy of particulars of offending vehicle as Ex. R3W1/2; office copy of notice u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC as Ex. R3W1/3; Postal receipts in respect of dispatch of notice as Ex. R3W1/4 to Ex. R3W1/7; Tacking report as Ex. R3W1/8 and returned envelopes as Ex. R3W1/9 to Ex. R3W1/11. During his cross- examination on behalf of petitioner, he admitted that offending vehicle was insured with their company at the time of accident.
41. R3W2 has produced complete record in respect of issuance of DL issued in favour of R1 namely Gurpreet Singh. He exhibited the attested copies of entire record as Ex. R3W2/1(colly). He deposed that as per record, the licence holder namely Sh. Gurpreet Singh was not authorized to drive the Heavy Commercial vehicle on the date of accident i.e., 26.05.2019. He further deposed that the aforesaid licence holder was not authorized to drive the vehicle having laden weight 25000 kg.
Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 24 of 29MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025
42. As already noted above, the respondent no. 1/driver himself did not enter into witness box during the course of enquiry and he has failed to produce any valid DL in his favour for the category of offending vehicle as on the date of accident in question. Respondent no. 2 also failed to produce any valid DL in favour of respondent no. 1 for the category of vehicle involved in the accident in question as on the date of accident.
43. In view of the aforesaid discussion of relevant witnesses, it is quite established on record that there was no valid and effective DL in favour of R1 for the category of Heavy Commercial Vehicle/Goods Carrier- Transport as on the date of accident. Had there been any valid DL in favour of respondent no. 1 to drive the catergory of vehicle like the present one, copy thereof would have been provided by him to the police but no such copy of DL has been filed alongwith DAR.
44. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find substance in the plea raised on behalf of insurance company that for want of valid and effective DL in favour of respondent no. 1 being proved on record, it would be termed as breach in the terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of insured i.e. respondent no. 2. Thus, insurance company is entitled to recovery rights against the respondent no. 1 & 2. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 25 of 29MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
45. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs. 7,72,000/- (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f date of filing the claim petition i.e. 28.11.2019 till the date of its realization, in favour of petitioner and against the respondents. (Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 21.04.2023). However, it would be open to the insurance company to recover the award amount from the respondents no. 1 & 2 after payment of compensation amount, in accordance with law. Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
46. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 24.07.2024. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 3,72,000/- shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his bank account no. 43365707866 with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi, having IFSC code SBIN0000726 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/-each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 26 of 29MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025
47. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to 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) 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.
(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.
Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 27 of 29MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
48. Respondent no. 3/New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer a sum of Rs. 3,72,000/- in the aforesaid bank account of petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 28 of 29 MACP No. 662/19; FIR No. 199/19; PS. Narela DOD: 13.02.2025 petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form XVI & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA MANCHANDA
MANCHANDA Date: 2025.02.13
Announced in the open 15:14:06 +0545
Court on 13.02.2025 (RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Sonu vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 29 of 29