Delhi District Court
Vikas vs Mickey Sachdeva on 27 September, 2023
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 1 of 35
IN THE COURT OF MS. JASJEET KAUR, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New No. 388-2019
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW01-006394-2019
Sh. Vikas S/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar,
R/o H.No.D3/16, Rama Vihar, Mohammadpur Majri,
North West Delhi,
Delhi-110081.
........ Petitioner/claimant
Vs.
1. Sh. Mickey Sachdeva S/o Sh. Sri Ram Sachdeva,
R/o G-4/78, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi.
....... Driver/R1
2. Sh. Ankit Sachdeva S/o Sh. Mickey Sachdeva,
R/o G-4/78, Sector-15, Rohini,
Delhi.
....... Owner/R2
3. Tata AIG Insurance Company Limited,
....... Insurance Co./R3
.......... Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 06.07.2019
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 27.09.2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.09.2023
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 1 of35
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 2 of 35
THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH
TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 11.10.2018
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the investigating 06.07.2019
officer to the Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the investigating 06.07.2019
officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. before Not mentioned in the
the Metropolitan Magistrate DAR
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report 06.07.2019
(DAR) by the investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance Company 06.07.2019
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 06.07.2019
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later N/A
on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents filed with Yes
DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of N/A
the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the 06.07.2019
insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated Sh. Pradeep Sehrawat,
Officer of the Insurance Company. Advocate
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No
Company submitted his report within 30 days of the
DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the liability? If Not fairly computed the
so, whether the Designated Officer of the insurance compensation in
company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of N/A
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of the No response
Insurance Company .
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 2 of35
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 3 of 35
18. Date of the Award 27.09.2023
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent of the No
parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open saving Yes
bank account(s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open 06.07.2019
saving bank account (s) near his place of residence and
produce PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the direction to
the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the
passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the passbook of 24.05.2023
their saving bank account near the place of their residence
along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) As mentioned above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and Petitioner Vikas S/o Sh.
the address of the bank with IFSC Code Ravinder Kumar, savings
bank a/c
no.41788797977 with
SBI, Karala, Delhi
IFSC :SBIN0050381
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) is near Yes
his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of Yes
passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial
condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC Code, 41065170303
name and branch of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in 110002427,
which the award amount is to be deposited/transferred. SBIN0010323, SBI,
(in terms of order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi Rohini Courts, Delhi
High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir
Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim proceedings have emanated from a Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) filed on 06.07.2019 with reference to FIR No. 454/2018 registered at PS Maurya Enclave for the commission of offences of causing hurt by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road punishable U/s 279/337 Indian Penal Code, Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 3 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 4 of 35 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) wherein subsequent charge sheet for the alleged commission of offences of causing grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road punishable u/s 279/338 IPC against one Micky Sachdeva was also filed in respect of grievous hurt sustained by injured Sh. Vikas (hereinafter referred to as the injured/the claimant/the petitioner). The learned Predecessor court had vide order dated 06.07.2019 treated the DAR as petition u/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short referred to as 'M.V. Act').
2. The brief facts of the case from the perspective of the petitioner as discernible from the DAR and the documents of the petitioner are that on the intervening night of 10.10.2018 and 11.10.2018, petitioner was going from Shalimar Bagh to Prashant Vihar by his motorcycle bearing registration No.DL11-SL-7884 make Hero Splendor Plus, which was being driven by him at a normal speed, on the correct side of the road with atmost care by following all the traffic rules and at about 1:45 am while taking a U turn at opposite Santom Hospital on Outer Ring Road, Pitampura, Delhi, a Car bearing registration No.DL4C-NC-7071 make Honda City (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), which was being driven by its driver, namely, Micky Sachdeva (hereinafter referred to as the driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no.1/R1) at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without taking necessary precautions as well as without proper lookouts, in violation of the traffic rules had come without blowing any horn and had hit the motorcycle of the petitioner with a great force, as a result of which he had fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner Vikas was removed to Santom Hospital, D-5 & 6, Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 4 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 5 of 35 Prashant Vihar, Outer Ring Road, Rohini, Delhi-110085, where he was medically examined vide MLC No.586/2018 dated 11.10.2018 containing a finding to the effect that he (petitioner Vikas) had sustained Head injury and injury in left ankle due to the case accident. Subsequently, the petitioner had remained admitted at Santom Hospital with effect from 11.10.2018 and was discharged therefrom on 17.10.2018 after being conservatively managed for head injury as well as for ankle anjury which was treated by application of plaster of paris (POP) slab on his left ankle for treatment of fracture of medial malleolus sustained by him in left lower limb. Thereafter, on 24.10.2018 during examination in out patient department (OPD), the POP slab applied on left leg of the petitioner was replaced by POP cast.
3. Sh. Micky Sachdeva S/o Sh. Sri Ram Sachdeva, who was the driver of the offending vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the driver of the offending vehicle) and Sh. Ankit Sachdeva S/o Sh. Mickey Sachdeva, who was the owner of the offending vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the owner of the offending vehicle) had filed their joint written statement wherein they had averred that the present claim filed by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed as the petitioner had suppressed the material facts from the court and the true and correct facts were that no such accident had been caused by the vehicle bearing registration No.DL4C-NC-7071 make Honda City/of the alleged offending vehicle. It had been claimed in the written statement of R1 and R2 that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner was without any basis and the petitioner was trying to falsely implicate the respondents in the present case in order to extort the money from the respondents and hence the petitioner was not entitled to any relief including Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 5 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 6 of 35 the amount claimed as compensation in the petition/DAR. It had been further averred in the written statement of R1 and R2 as such no damage was detected in their vehicle during its mechanical inspection. Besides, it was another defence of R1 and R2 that the alleged accident had taken place on 11.10.2018 whereas the case FIR was registered on 30.10.2018 and there was a delay of 20 days in registration of the FIR which clearly established that R1 and R2 had been falsely implicated in the case to claim compensation from the respondents and insurance company.
3.1 The insurer of the offending vehicle, namely, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as R3/respondent No.3) had filed its written statement wherein it had been averred that there was an unexplained delay of 20 days in registration of the case FIR and it was contended that the present case was a prima facie case of hit and run and car bearing No. DL4C-NC-7071 had been planted subsequently in the present matter to claim unlawful compensation from R3. It had however been admitted by R3 that the offending vehicle was duly insured in the name of Sunny Khana vide policy no. 0157619113 having its validity period commencing from 15.10.2017 and expiring on 14.10.2018 which was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. R3 had, however, sought permission u/s 170 of the M.V. Act to contest the case on all grounds available to R1/driver and R2/owner without prejudice to Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act in case R1/driver and R2/owner of offending vehicle would fail to contest the claim on merits or were otherwise found to be in collusion with the petitioner. R3 had also sought liberty to amend its written statement in case any new facts would come to the knowledge of R3 during Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 6 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 7 of 35 investigation or trial of the present matter.
4. From the pleadings of the parties/DAR, the following issues were framed by the learned Predecessor Court vide order dated 29.01.2020:-
(1) Whether on 11.10.2018 at about 1:45 a, in front of Santom Hospital, Outer Ring Road, Delhi, one Car bearing registration No.DL4C-NC-7071, which was being driven by its driver Micky Sachdeva, hit motorcycle bearing registration No.DL11-SL-7884 and caused injuries to Vikas? OPP (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP (3) Relief.
5. Victim Sh. Vikas had examined himself as PW1 and Dr. Shadab Umar, Sr. Resident, Santom Hospital, D-5-6, Prashant Vihar, Outer ring Road, Delhi as PW2 in the present matter. No other witness was examined by the petitioner in support of his version of the case. 5.1 A perusal of the court record reveals that R1/Mickey Sachdeva and R2/ Ankit Sachdeva had not examined any witness in support of their case. Besides, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited/R3 has also not examined any witness in support of its version of the case.
6. I have heard the final arguments addressed by Sh. Ajay Kumar Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Pradeep Sehrawat, Ld. Counsel for the insurance co./R3. None had appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 for addressing final arguments. My issue wise findings based on my appreciation of the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective versions of the case are reproduced herein below:-
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 7 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 8 of 35 7. Issue wise findings:- ISSUE No. 1
(1) Whether on 11.10.2018 at about 1:45 a, in front of Santom Hospital, Outer Ring Road, Delhi, one Car bearing registration No.DL4C-NC-7071, which was being driven by its driver Micky Sachdeva, hit motorcycle bearing registration No.DL11-SL-7884 and caused injuries to Vikas? OPP The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioner.
7.1 PW1 petitioner/Sh.Vikas had deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he had reiterated the facts narrated in the DAR by stating that on the intervening night of 10.10.2018 and 11.10.2018, he was going from Shalimar Bagh to Prashant Vihar by his motorcycle bearing registration No.DL11-SL-7884 make Hero Splendor Plus, which was being driven by him at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road with utmost care by following all the traffic rules and at about 1:45 am, while taking a U turn at Opposite Santom Hospital, Outer Ring Road, Pitampura, Delhi, a Car bearing registration No.DL4C-NC07071 make Honda City, which was being driven by its driver/R4 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without taking necessary precautions as well as without proper lookout in violation of the traffic rules and without blowing any horn had come and had hit his motorcycle with a great force, due to which he had fell down on the road and had sustained injuries for treatment of which he had been removed to Santom Hospital, D-5 & 6, Prashant Vihar, Outer Ring Road, Rohini, Delhi- 110085, where he was medically examined vide MLC No.586/2018 dated Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 8 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 9 of 35 11.10.2018 containing a finding to the effect that he (the petitioner) had sustained head injury along with injury in left ankle. He stated that thereafter he had remained admitted in Santom Hospital on 11.10.2018 and was discharged therefrom on 17.10.2018 and thereafter his treatment had continued for a period of six months during which period he was completely bed ridden at home. He further deposed that he had incurred a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as expenses on his treatment out of which a sum of Rs. 75,000/- had been reimbursed by the mediclaim policy (mediclaim service provider) and the balance amount has been paid by him out of pocket. He further deposed that he had incurred expenses on his daily transportation, special diet and availing services of a full time attendant at the rate of Rs.500/- per day for a period of six months. He further deposed that at the time of accident, he was working as a Delivery Executive at Swiggy Foods, Delivery, Delhi and was earning Rs.20,000/- as salary and overtime to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month. He further deposed that due to the injury sustained in the accident, he was not able to do his work and to earn his livelihood for a period of six months. He stated that after the accident he was not able to do any daily routine or to move out from the bed on his own and therefore he had engaged an attendant to look after himself and the said attendant had remained in his service for a period of about six months. He deposed that besides suffering from economic losses, he had also suffered severe mental pain and agony, loss of amenities of life and severe physical pain due to the injuries sustained in the case accident. He relied upon following documents in support of his deposition:
1. Copy of his adhar card, PAN Card, election I-Card and driving licence Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 9 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 10 of 35 Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4.
2. Copy of registration certificate of his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL11-SL-7884 Ex.PW1/5.
3. Copy of his educational certificates Ex.PW1/6 (colly).
4. His original medical prescriptions and medical bills Ex.PW1/7 and PW1/8 (colly).
5. DAR, filed by the IO Ex.PW1/9 (colly).
6. Photocopy of his duly reimbursed medical bills Mark A/1 to A/21 (colly).
7.2 In cross-examination by Sh. Pradeep Sehrawat, Learned Counsel for the insurance company/R3, PW1 deposed that he had not filed any documents to show that he was working with Swiggy. He denied the suggestion that he was neither working nor earning Rs.25,000/- per month as mentioned in para 3 of his affidavit. He stated that he had not made any request (complaint) either to police or doctors of Santom Hospital regarding wrong mentioning of nature of injuries sustained by him as simple injury instead of grievous injury in his MLC. He denied the suggestion that he had not suffered any grievous injury and due to this reason he had not made any such request to the police or doctors for correction of nature of injury in his MLC. He voluntarily stated that in his discharge summary dated 17.10.2018 which was Ex.PW1/R1, it was duly mentioned that he had sustained head injury and fracture (#) due to RTA (road traffic accident) at point A. He stated that he had not placed any other document on court record except discharge summary wherein it was mentioned that he had sustained a Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 10 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 11 of 35 fracture in the left foot. He voluntarily stated that his photographs showing his plastered foot were at page no. 84 of the DAR. He further stated that he was discharged from the hospital on 17.10.2018. He also stated that he had made call to the police regarding his accident on 11.10.2018 after his discharge, however, he expressed his inability to recall the exact date of call to police on 100 number or channel number of the same. He denied the suggestion that no call was made by him and that was the reason he could not remember the date or channel number of such call. He stated that he had no document in his possession to show that he had made any written complaint to the police between 17.10.2018 to 30.10.2018. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the offending vehicle in the present case to claim compensation. He stated that the offending vehicle had got damaged at front right hand side due to the case accident. Despite being confronted with mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle bearing No. DL4C-NC-7071 wherein the damages were shown as nil, PW1 denied the suggestion that the present accident had not been caused by the offending vehicle and due to this reason no damage was sustained by the offending vehicle as per its mechanical inspection report. He stated that the call to the police at 100 number was made by his friend Niranjan. He further stated that he had not mentioned in his complaint or his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A or in any other statement to the police anything about presence of Niranjan at the spot of accident. He denied the suggestion that it was not so mentioned in his complaint as well as in his evidence by way of affidavit because his friend Niranjan was not present at the spot of accident. He stated that he had not filed any document to establish that he Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 11 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 12 of 35 was under treatment for 6 months or was bedridden during the said period.
He stated that he had visited the doctor/hospital for the last time on 24.10.2018. He further stated that he had not filed any document regarding expenses of hiring of a medical attendant as well as towards transportation charges or special diet charges etc. incurred by him. He denied the suggestion that he had not suffered any financial loss on account of injuries sustained by him in the present accident. He deposed that maximum of his bills had been reimbursed and rest of the bills had been placed by him on record.
7.3 R1 and R2 had adopted the cross-examination of PW1 Vikas as conducted on behalf of the insurance co./R3.
7.4 PW2 Dr. Shadab Umar, Senior Resident, Santom Hospital, D-5-6, Prashant Vihar, Outer Ring Road, Delhi produced the summoned record, that is, certificate signed by Dr. Rajesh Mishra, Medical Superintendent, Santom Hospital in respect of admission and treatment given to patient Vikas Ex.PW2/1. He also produced the attested copy of treatment record of patient Vikas as maintained at Santom Hospital Ex.PW2/2 and discharge summary of the said patient Ex.PW2/3.
7.5 In his cross-examination by Sh. Aakash, learned proxy counsel for Sh. Pradeep Shehrawat, learned counsel for the insurance company/R3, PW2 clarified that the certificate Ex.PW2/1 was neither signed by him nor prepared by him and the same had been signed by M.S of Santom Hospital. He admitted that in the MLC of patient Vikas bearing No. 586/2018, it had been mentioned that petitioner had not sustained any fracture as per the X- ray report of the patient. He voluntarily clarified that subsequently on the Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 12 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 13 of 35 next date, Dr. Sumit Arora had detected fracture of medial malleolus in left ankle of the petitioner and the same had also been mentioned in the discharge summary of the patient Ex.PW2/3. On being confronted with the X-ray of left ankle of the petitioner Ex.PW1/R1 (page No.16) of medical record, PW2 replied that there was no fracture mentioned in the X-ray. In response a court question as to whether which diagnosis of the petitioner of having sustained fracture or not having sustained any fracture was correct, PW2 replied that the diagnosis of having sustained fracture of medial malleolus in left lower limb was correct as per the records of Santom Hospital. He stated that he had not brought the X-ray of the petitioner as the same must have been sent to the insurance company of the petitioner for processing his medical claim. He denied the suggestion that he had not brought the X-ray of the petitioner because no fracture has been detected in his left ankle.
7.6 None had appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 for cross examining PW2, and hence, cross-examination of PW2 on behalf of R1 and R2 was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to R1 and R2 to cross-examine PW2.
7.7 A perusal of the court record reveals that R1/Driver of the offending vehicle, R2/owner of the offending vehicle and R3/insurance company of the offending vehicle had not examined any witness in support of their case.
7.8 No material contradiction or discrepancy had appeared in the cross examination of PW1 to discredit his above said testimony which prima facie establishes that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 thereby causing grievous injuries on Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 13 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 14 of 35 the person of PW1/petitioner Vikas. PW1 is the injured himself who had no reason to depose falsely in the present matter against R1. Even otherwise, PW1 had withstood his cross-examination by learned counsel for the insurance company and therefore as such he is the trustworthy and reliable witnesses. Accordingly, his testimony can be relied upon by this Tribunal for arriving at a finding of negligence in driving of the offending vehicle against R1.
7.9 It is a defence of R3/insurance company that the petitioner had sustained simple injuries in the case accident as per his MLC, however, on perusal of complete medical record of the petitioner Ex.PW2/2 and his discharge summary E x.PW2/3 as proved by PW2 Dr. Shadab Umar, it can be safely concluded that petitioner had sustained fracture of medial malleolus of his left ankle and thus sustained grievous injuries.
7.10 It is another defence of R3/Insurance company that the R1 has been falsely implicated in the present matter on the basis of a story concocted by the petitioner during the period of 19 days which had lapsed between the date of occurrence of the alleged accident and the date of registration of the FIR in the present matter. In this context, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the Insurance company that intervening period of 19 days which had lapsed between the date of occurrence of the alleged accident and the registration of the FIR had been utilized by the petitioner for inventing a false story regarding the involvement of the vehicle of respondent no.1 in the case accident despite the fact that the said vehicle was not involved in the case accident. It is, thus, a defence of R3 that the delay of 19 days in registration of the FIR in the present matter is fatal to the case of the petitioner.
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 14 of35
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 15 of 35
7.11 I have considered the above mentioned defence of the R3 in the light of the
facts of the present case as well as the law of precedents on the point of delay in registration of FIR. It is a known fact that the registration of FIR is often delayed in accident cases due to certain unavoidable circumstances, such as, the cases wherein the victims remain unconscious for several days and are unable to give any complaining statement for the registration of the FIR. It is trite law that every delay in registration of FIR cannot be used as a ground to demolish the entire case of the victim and when a delay in registration of the FIR is supported by a plausible explanation then the same cannot be treated as fatal to the entire case of the victim.
7.12 Observations made in para 12 in the decided case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Gian Chand 2001 A.I.R (SC) 2075, 2001 (5) J.T 169, 2001(6) S.C.C 71 are noteworthy in this context and are reproduced below:-
"Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the Court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case. In the present case, PW- 1 the mother of the prosecutrix is a widow. The accused is a close relation of brother of husband of PW1. PW1 obviously needed her family members consisting of her in-laws to accompany her or at least help her in lodging the first information report at the police station. The incident having occurred in a village, the approach of the in-laws of PW1 displayed rusticity in first calling upon the father of the accused and complaining to him of what his son had done. It remained an unpleasant family affair on the next day of the incident which was tried to be settled, if it could be, within the walls of family. That failed. It is thereafter only that the complainant, the widow woman, left all by herself and having no male family members willing to accompany her, proceeded alone to police Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 15 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 16 of 35 station. She has lent moral support by Ruldu Ram, the village Panch, whereupon the report of the incident was lodged. The sequence of events soon following the crime and as described by the prosecution witnesses sounds quite natural and provides a satisfactory explanation for the delay. It was found to be so by the learned Session Judge. The High Court has not looked into the explanation offered and very superficially recorded a finding of the delay having remained "unexplained" and hence fatal to the prosecution case. It is common knowledge and also judicially noted fact that incidents like rape, more so when the perpetrator of the crime happens to be a member of the family or related therewith, involve the house of the family and therefore, there is a reluctance on the part of the family of the victim to report the matter to the police and carry the same to the court. A cool thought may precede lodging of the FIR. Such are the observations found to have been made by this court in State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and others, 1996 (2) SCC 384 and also in the case of Harpal Singh, 1981 SCC Crl. 208. We are satisfied that the delay in making the FIR has been satisfactory explained and, therefore, does not cause any dent in the prosecution case."
7.13 Similar observations were also made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka Versus Bhashar Kushali Kotharkar and other 2004(7) Supreme Court Cases 487 wherein the deceased was murdered at about 7.00-7:30 PM and the wife of deceased had lodged the FIR on the next morning. She had explained the delay in lodging the FIR by stating that she was afraid of going to the police station in the night. The Hon'ble Apex court had observed that the evidence of wife of deceased could not rejected on ground of delay in the lodging of FIR as her testimony had been corroborated by the evidence of PW2. Observations made in para 8 of judgment are pertinent to note in this context and are reproduced below:-
"The counsel for the respondents pointed out that there was long delay in giving the FI statement to the police. PW1 stated that she was afraid to go to the police station and she went only on the next day . It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the parent-in-law of PW 1 and several other relatives were staying in the nearby houses and she could have sought assistance of one of them and as she had not done so, her evidence is suspicious and cannot be relied on. We do not think that the evidence of this Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 16 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 17 of 35 witness can be rejected on this ground especially when her evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2. PW2 also deposed that all these respondents and others came to the place of incident and attacked the deceased Prakash, herself and PW1. It is important to note that PW2 sustained more than seven injuries and these injuries might have been caused at the time of the incident at the hands of the assailants. PW1 sustained injuries on the right thigh and on the right side of the foot."
7.14 Thus, in the light of afore-cited opinion expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decided cases of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Gyan Chand 2001 A.I.R (SC) 2075, 2001 (5) J.T 169, 2001(6) S.C.C 71 and State Vs Karnatka Vs Bhaskar Kushali & Ors 2004(7) Supreme Court Cases 487, I am of the considered opinion that in the present case also the delay in the lodging of FIR has been sufficiently explained by the IO SI Pankaj in the FIR itself, who has mentioned that on the date of accident, that is 11.10.2018 on receipit of DD No.4A regarding accident of victim Vikas, he had gone to the spot alongwith Ct. Anuj wherefrom on being informed about the fact that injured had already been shifted to Santom Hospital, he had proceeded to the said hospital and had found that petitioner Vikas was under treatment and was unfit for making statement. Accordingly, he had kept the PCR call/DD No.4A pending for investigation and subsequently on 30.10.2018 he had visited the residence of victim Vikas where he had recorded the statement of Vikas before lodging the FIR on 30.10.2018. Thus, there was no intentional delay of 19 days in lodging of FIR by petitioner Vikas and the delay of 19 days caused by medical condition of the petitioner who had sustained head injury apart from fracture of medial malleolus in his left ankle and was unfit for making statement. The said delay has been duly explained by the IO in the FIR itself and Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 17 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 18 of 35 cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the petitioner.
7.15 The DAR has been filed by the IO in the present matter. A perusal of same reveals that the charge sheet for the commission of offences punishable u/s 279/338 IPC was also filed against R1/driver of the offending vehicle. The criminal case record can also be relied upon by this Tribunal to arrive at a finding of the involvement of the offending vehicle and the negligence on the part of R1 in the occurrence of the case accident.
7.16 The issue no. 1 is only to be proved by claimant beyond preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt.
7.17 Accordingly, in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of materials placed on record and in view of above discussion, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of petitioner/PW1, and hence, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents by arriving at a finding to the effect that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 and that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question.
7.18 Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents accordingly.
8. Issue No. (2) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 18 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 19 of 35 probabilities was upon the petitioner.
8.1 In view of my findings in issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1 resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation in respect of medical expenses, conveyance expenses, special diet charges and attendant charges etc. incurred by him. I shall now examine the entire evidence led by parties including the documents of the petitioner for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled under various heads.
8.2 The petitioner had remained admitted at Santom Hospital with effect from the date of accident 11.10.2018 and was discharged from there on 17.10.2018 during which period, the fracture injuries sustained by the petitioner were conservatively managed by application of plaster of paris slab on his left leg. Thus, in view of discharge summary of the petitioner Ex.PW2/3 and his complete medical record Ex.PW2/2, it can be safely concluded that he had sustained grievous injuries in the case accident, which were conservatively managed. Subsequently, on 24.10.2018 , the plaster of paris slab affixed on left leg of the petitioner was removed and replaced by plaster of paris caused (pakka plaster). Also apart from injuries sustained in the left leg, petitioner had sustained head injuries in the case accident. The petitioner testified that he had spent Rs.1,50,000/- on his medical treatment, out of which Rs. 75,000/- had been reimbursed from the mediclaim policy and the balance amount had been paid by him out of his own pocket. He further deposed that he had incurred expenses on daily transportation, special diet and had hired a full time attendant at the rate of Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 19 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 20 of 35 Rs.500/- per day for a period of six months for his day to day requirements. He further deposed that at the time of accident, he was working as a Delivery Executive at Swiggy Foods, Delivery, Delhi and was earning Rs.20,000/- as salary from his job along with overtime to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month. He further deposed that due to the injury sustained in the accident, he was not able to do his work (job) and to earn his livelihood for a period of six months. He stated that after the accident he was not able to do any daily routine or to move out from his bed on his own and due to this reason he had hired an attendant to look after him for a period of six months. He deposed that besides suffering from economic losses, he had also suffered severe mental pain and agony, loss of amenities of life and severe physical pain due to the injuries sustained in the case accident. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation:-
9. Medical Expenses 9.1 The petitioner has claimed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that he had remained admitted in Santom Hospital with effect from 11.10.2018 and was discharged on 17.10.2018 and thereafter his treatment had continued in out patient department (OPD) for a period of six months. He further deposed that he had incurred Rs. 1,50,000/- as expenses on his treatment out of which Rs. 75,000/- has been reimbursed by his mediclaim service provider and balance amount had been paid by him out of his own pocket. However, a perusal of court record reveals that the petitioner had failed to file on record medical bills in the sum of Rs.
1,50,000/- and the total bills filed on record by the petitioner were in the sum of Rs.83,380.52/-. Out of the said bills, one final bill raised by Santom Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 20 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 21 of 35 Hospital in respect of inpatient treatment of petitioner Vikas in the sum of Rs.78,524.52/- had been duly reimbursed by his mediclaim service provider, that is, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company. The rest of the medical bills of the petitioner raised by various chemists regarding medicines purchased by the petitioner amounting to Rs.4,856/-have been paid in cash by the petitioner and have not been reimbursed by any office including mediclaim service provider or employer of the petitioner. Accordingly, in such circumstances, this tribunal deems it appropriate to grant an amount of Rs.4,856/- as compensation to the petitioner under the head of medical expenses.
10. Special Diet and Conveyance 10.1 Petitioner Vikas as PW1 has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein he had claimed to have incurred expenses on daily transportation, special diet and availing services of a full time attendant at the rate of Rs.500/- per day for a period of six months for his day to day requirements. However, a perusal of the court record establishes that the petitioner has neither examined any witness to prove his expenditure on special diet and conveyance nor proved any bill in this regard. In such circumstances, the requirement of special diet, if any, faced by the petitioner for recuperation of the injuries sustained in the case accident as well as the expenditure, if any, incurred by the petitioner in traveling to various hospitals or clinics from his residence and vice-versa during his treatment period have to be ascertained in accordance with the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner. 10.2 In this context, a perusal of MLC No.586/2018 dated 11.10.2018 reveals that the petitioner had sustained Head injury and injury in left ankle Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 21 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 22 of 35 on account of having met with a road traffic accident. Subsequently, the petitioner had remained admitted at Santom Hospital with effect from 11.10.2018 and was discharged therefrom on 17.10.2018 after being conservatively managed by application of plaster of paris (POP) slab on his left ankle for treatment of fracture of medial malleolus in his left lower limb. Thereafter, during examination in out patient department (OPD), the POP slab applied on the left leg of the petitioner was replaced by POP cast. 10.3 Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, particularly fracture of medial malleolus suffered by him in his left ankle and medical record furnished by him, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have taken regular treatment of injuries sustained in the case accident for about six months during which period he must have consumed certain special diets such as nutritional supplements and high protein diet etc. for his speedy recovery. Besides, the petitioner must have incurred additional expenses on travel to various hospitals and clinics from his residence and vice versa during his treatment period. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs. 60,000/- is granted as compensation to the petitioner under this head including Rs. 30,000/- each towards special diet and conveyance charges respectively.
11. Attendant Charges 11.1 Petitioner Vikas as PW1 has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein he had claimed to have incurred a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as expenses on his medical treatment and other general expenses. He has claimed to have incurred Rs. 500/- per day as expenses on special diet, conveyance and availing services of a medical attendant. He has, however, not led any Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 22 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 23 of 35 evidence to prove the expenses incurred by him towards attendant charges during his treatment period. Nevertheless, a perusal of MLC of the petitioner bearing No.586/2018 dated 11.10.2018 reveals that the petitioner had sustained Head injury and injury in left ankle. Subsequently, the petitioner had remained admitted at Santom Hospital with effect from 11.10.2018 and was discharged therefrom on 17.10.2018 after being conservatively managed by application of plaster of paris (POP) slab on his left ankle for treatment of fracture of medial malleolus sustained in his left lower limb. Thereafter, during examination in out patient department (OPD), the POP slab applied on left leg of the petitioner was replaced by POP cast on 24.10.2018. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner in his left ankle, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the affected limb of the petitioner must have remained immobilized for a considerable period of time to ensure reunion of the fractured bone therein and during this period, the petitioner must not have been able to use his left leg for his daily routine activities such as bathing, walking, dressing up and using the rest room etc. In such circumstances, the petitioner must have required services of either a paid medical attendant or a family member as an attendant for his day to day chores involving use of his left leg during his treatment period of six months as already determined by this Tribunal in the preceding discussion and therefore, a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- is granted to the petitioner as compensation under this head of attendant charges for six months.
12. Pain and Suffering 12.1 A perusal of MLC of the petitioner bearing No.586/2018 dated 11.10.2018 reveals that the petitioner had sustained Head injury and injury Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 23 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 24 of 35 in left ankle on account of having met with the case accident. Subsequently, the petitioner had remained admitted at Santom Hospital with effect from 11.10.2018 and was discharged therefrom on 17.10.2018 after being conservatively managed by application of plaster of paris (POP) slab on his left ankle a part of treatment of fracture of medial malleolus sustained by him in his left lower limb. Thereafter, during examination in out patient department (OPD), the POP slab applied on left leg of the petitioner was replaced by POP cast on 24.10.2018.
12.2 In view of the grievous nature of fracture injuries sustained by the petitioner in his left medical malleolus (ankle bone) resulting in restricted movement in his left leg as well as in view of head injuries sustained by the petitioner, this tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have endured considerable pain and suffering during his treatment period. Accordingly a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head as compensation towards pain and suffering.
13. Loss of income 13.1 Petitioner Vikas had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he had claimed that he was employed as delivery executive at Swiggy Foods at the time of occurrence of the case accident and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month from his said profession including Rs. 20,000/- towards salary and Rs. 5,000/- towards overtime. However, he has not placed on record any income certificate or salary slip issued by his employer. He has also not placed on record his ITR or any statement of his bank account showing credit of his salary therein, so as to facilitate a finding by this Court regarding his monthly income. Moreover, the petitioner has Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 24 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 25 of 35 also not filed on court record any documents pertaining to his educational qualifications or any professional skill acquired by him so as to facilitate a finding from this court regarding his earning capacity on the basis of his educational attainments. In such circumstances, the petitioner can at best be considered to be an unskilled labourer or workman. Besides, as per the Aadhar card of the petitioner relied upon by him, the petitioner was residing at D-3/16, Rama Vihar, Mohammad Pur Majri, North West Delhi, Delhi- 110081, at the time of his accident and therefore, the income of the petitioner must be determined in accordance with minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer in the National Capital Territory of Delhi as on the date of occurrence of the case accident, that is, on 11.10.2018 which was Rs.14,000/- per month. Moreover, the period of treatment-cum-recuperation has also been determined in the case of the petitioner to be about six months. Therefore, loss of income to the tune of Rs.84,000/- (Rs.14,000/- x 6 months) is granted to the petitioner for six months as compensation under this head.
14. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs.2,28,856/- which is tabulated as below:-
Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
2. Special diet & Conveyance Rs.60,000/-
3. Attendant Charges Rs.30,000/-
4. Medical Expenses Rs.4,856/-
5. Loss of income Rs.84,000/-
Total Rs.2,28,856/-
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 25 of35
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 26 of 35
(Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Eight Thousands Eight Hundred and Fifty Six Only) 14.1 In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) of the back the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present claim petition had been instituted on 06.07.2019 and the rate of interest on fixed deposits in nationalized banks had fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case also this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. w.e.f 06.07.2019 till realisation of the compensation amount.
14.2 The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
15. Liability 15.1 As discussed above, the insurance co./R3 has not examined any witness in support of its case. The necessary insurance policy of the offending vehicle covering the date of accident has been proved in the DAR (Colly.) Ex.PW1/9. In the said circumstances, the Tata AIG Insurance Company Ltd./R3 has not been able to show anything on record that R1 and R2, who were the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. As per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance co./R3, Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 26 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 27 of 35 hence R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner/claimant as per law.
15.2 Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., Tata AIG Insurance Company Ltd./R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.2,28,856/- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank alongwith the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
16. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP was recorded on 24.05.2023 regarding his savings bank a/c with endorsement of MACT claims SB Account, no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding the financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 27 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 28 of 35 passed in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
16.1 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, said statement of the petitioner/injured and clause 32 of MCTAP regarding protection of the award amount, it is hereby directed that on realization, an amount of Rs.28,856/- be released to him in his MACT Claims SB A/c no.41788797977 with State Bank of India, Karala, Delhi, as per rules, that is, the branch near his place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD) so that the maximum benefits can be availed by the petitioner. In case, the MACAD scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be kept in 20 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 20 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and pre-mature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal. 16.2 The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003.
However, till the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue inconvenience, the Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 28 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 29 of 35 fixed deposits shall be subject to 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 victim, that is, the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings 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 amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall 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 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 29 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 30 of 35 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.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
17. Relief 17.1 As discussed above, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited/R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.2,28,856/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, 06.07.2019 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
17.2 R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimant and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today. 17.3 A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no.3 for compliance within the granted time.
17.4 Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non- receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 30 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 31 of 35 in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606) {other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioner was also recorded on 24.05.2023. The record would show that the relevant documents including copy of aadhar card, PAN card, copy of bank pass book and form 15G of the petitioner have already been supplied to the learned counsel for insurance co. on 24.05.2023 itself.
18. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 31 of35 Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 32 of 35 necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR)
On 27th September 2023 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 32 of35
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 33 of 35
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY
CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 11.10.2018
2. Name of injured: Vikas
3. Age of the injured: About 22 years, 01 months and 07 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: Delivery Executive at Swiggy Foods.
5. Income of the injured: Rs.14,000/- per month (salary).
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: About 06 months.
8. Period of hospitalization: 7 days.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: No.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.4,856/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.30,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.30,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.30,000/-
(v) Loss of income Rs.84,000/-
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 33 of35
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 34 of 35
(vi) Any other loss which may require N/A
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and N/A
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life N/A
(iv) Disfiguration N/A
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and N/A nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning N/A capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X N/A %Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.2,28,856/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.67,683.95/-
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 34 of35
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 35 of 35
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 2,96,539.95/-
18. Award amount released Rs.28,856/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.2,67,683.95/- (rounded of
Rs.2,67,684/-)
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) clause 29 of MCTAP (Clause29)
21. Next date for compliance of the 26.10.2023 award. (Clause 31) Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR) On 27th September 2023 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Vikas Vs. Micky Sachdeva & Ors. Page 35 of35