Delhi District Court
Mr. Imran Khan vs ) Jasbir Singh (Driver) on 13 August, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. D.K. MALHOTRA, ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
CUM PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI.
(MACT No. 1033/10)
(Grievous Injury/Disability Case)
Mr. Imran Khan
S/o Umed Ali Medu Khan
Through natural guardian
Majidhan Begum (Mother)
w/o Umed Ali Medu Khan,
R/o House No. 225, Vill. Bhorgarh,
Narela, Delhi.
------Petitioner
Versus
1) Jasbir Singh (Driver)
S/o Inder Singh
R/o House No.112, Vill. Hiran Kudna,
Delhi.
2) Bhushan Kumar (Owner)
S/o Sh. Gangu Ram
R/o. H.No. 5332, Chandrawal Road,
Subji Mandi, Delhi.
3) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali road,
New Delhi.
------Respondents
Date of filing of DAR..........17.07.2010
Date of decision--------------13.08.2013
(Application u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act
for grant of compensation)
**********************************
2
JUDGMENT:-
1 On the unfortunate day of 18.6.2010 the injured/petitioner had left his house for Narela for attending the Tuition classes, as it was his daily routine. When the injured/petitioner reached at the bus stand Bhorgarh for boarding the bus, at about 8.50 hrs one blue line bus route No. 175 coming from the Alipur and going towards Narela stopped at Bhorgarh bus stand and when the injured/petitioner tried to board the said blue line bus from the back door of the said bus, the driver of the said bus had immediately drove the bus in a very high speed in a very rash and negligent manner. At that time the injured/petitioner had already hold the bus inside rod and put his one foot over the foot rest of the bus, but due to the negligence on the part of the driver as the driver was in a very rash manner speed up the bus and the injured also shouted at the time for stopping the said bus but the driver turn deaf hear to the petitioner's shout in his own sense continue to drive the bus in the rash, speedy and negligent manner and due to which the petitioner fall down and received injury over his right leg and foot. As a result of which petitioner suffered grievous injuries i.e. right leg and foot got fractured. He was taken to Dr Mukesh Aggarwal Orthopaedic & Trauma Centre where he was operated and also remained hospitalized. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver/respondent No.1. The FIR was registered in respect of this accident vide FIR No. 239/10, PS Narela, U/s. 279/337 IPC.
2 Written statement was filed on behalf of R1 and R2 jointly, wherein they denied all the allegations of the petitioner and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Separate written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No.3/insurance company wherein it denied all allegations made by the injured and evaded its liabilities on technicalities.
3 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed on 9.12.2011:-
3Issues
1. Whether Imran Khan son of Umed Ali Medu Khan suffered injuries due to road accident on 18.6.2010 at about 8.50 AM at Bhorgarh Bus Stand, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Narela, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL 1Pb 4698 being driven by respondent No.1 ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what an extent and from which of the respondents ? OPP.
3. Relief.
4 The petitioner in support of his case examined five witnesses:-
At the time of evidence the injured/petitioner Imran Khan turned major of 19 years of age who examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1. He also tendered the documents Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/F. PW2 is Sh. Harish Thappa, he deposed that he worked as attendant for petitioner/injured and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. PW3 is Dr. Mukesh Aggarwal from Dr. Mukesh Orthopedic And Trauma Centre He deposed that injured Imran Khan was admitted to his hospital on 18.6.2010 where he was operated by him and discharged from hospital on 22.6.2010. He proved the discharge summary as Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that petitioner was again admitted to his hospital on 31.3.2011 and discharged on 2.4.2011 and proved the discharge summary as Ex.PW3/A. PW4 is Dr. Mohit Saxena from Sharma Multi Specialty Hospital, Narela, Delhi. He deposed that injured was admitted to the hospital on 29.6.2010 with complaints of highgrade fever with chills and rigour and vomitings. Injured was diagnosed to be suffering from UTI complicated with follow up case of fracture shaft femur and after giving the proper medical treatment he was discharged on 5.7.2010. The discharge summary dt 29.6.010 was already proved as Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter again the 4 injured was admitted to their hospital on 6.4.2011 with the complaints of fever, pain, swelling and post operated site with loose tools because of infection at the fracture side and after giving the proper medical treatment he was discharged on
10.4.2011. The discharge summary dt. 10.4.2011 was already proved as Ex. PW1/B. PW5 is Dr. Professor Sh. S.L.Yadav. Specialist Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, AIIMS, Member Disability Board. He proved the disability assessment calculation charge as Ex.PW5/X and the disability certificate of injured as Ex.PW5/1. Thereafter PE was closed.
No witness was examined by the respondents despite opportunity being granted to them. Thereafter RE was closed.
5 I have heard Ld. counsels for the parties besides going through the material on record carefully.
ISSUE NO.1:
6 The onus of proving the issue No.1 was on the petitioner. The principles to be followed in the case of motor accident claims has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati in case cited as Renu Bala Paul and Ors. vs. Bani Chakraborty and Ors. 1999 ACJ 634 by Hon'ble Guahati High Court that :
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the standard proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or 5 decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society.
In case N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. vs. M.Karumai Ammal & Ors. (1980) 3 SCC 475 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :-
"In Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, especially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasizing this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their "neighbour".
7 As the onus of proving the issue No.1 was on the petitioner who is the injured/eye witness himself. He deposed that on 18.6.2010 the he had left his house for Narela for attending the Tuition classes, as it was his daily routine. When the he reached at the bus stand Bhorgarh for boarding the bus, at about 8.50 hrs one blue line bus route No. 175 coming from the Alipur and going towards Narela 6 stopped at Bhorgarh bus stand and when the injured/petitioner tried to board the said blue line bus from the back door of the said bus, the driver of the said bus had immediately drove the bus in a very high speed in a very rash and negligent manner. At that time the injured/petitioner had already hold the bus inside rod and put his one foot over the foot rest of the bus, but due to the negligence on the part of the driver as the driver was in a very rash manner speed up the bus and the injured also shouted at the time for stopping the said bus but the driver turn deaf hear to the petitioner's shout in his own sense continue to drive the bus in the rash, speedy and negligent manner and due to which the petitioner fall down and received injury over his right leg and foot. As a result of which petitioner suffered grievous injuries i.e. right leg and foot got fractured. He was taken to Dr Mukesh Aggarwal Orthopaedic & Trauma Centre where he was operated and also remained hospitalized. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver/respondent No.1. He was cross examined by respondents No. 1 to 3 but nothing substantial came out from his cross examination. Further the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle chose not to examine him despite the fact that he was the best witness to challenge the statement of PW1. Hence adverse inference is to be drawn against him.
8 The copies of the criminal case record is also placed on the record which shows that the police has prosecuted the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle for driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and causing the accident in question. It is not the case of the respondents that they had lodged any complaint to any higher authority against alleged false implication of respondent no. 1 in criminal case. It is also not their case that they had any previous enmity with petitioner or IO of the case which facilitated them to involve respondent no. 1 in the alleged false case. In absence of any effective cross examination of PW1 regarding the manner of accident, I find no ground to disbelieve their statements and accordingly it is held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. DL 1PB 4698 by respondent no. 1 by which injured had suffered grievous injuries and there was no 7 negligence on his part. Accordingly, this issue is thus decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2 9 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 2011 decided on 01.11.2011 has observed as under:
"The personal sufferings of the survivors and disabled persons are manifold. Some time they can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is permanently disabled in an accident, the cost of his medical treatment and care is likely to be very high. In cases involving total or partial disablement, the term "compensation" used in section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for a particular injury or disability caused by an accident. A very large number of people involved in motor accidents are pedestrians, children, women and illiterate persons. Majority of them cannot, due to sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabilities, engage competent lawyers for proving negligence of the wrongdoer in adequate measure. The insurance companies with whom the vehicles involved in the accident are insured usually have battery of lawyers on their panel. They contest the claim petitions by raising all possible technical objections for ensuring that their clients are either completely absolved or their liabilities minimized. This results in prolonging the proceedings before the Tribunal. Sometimes the delay and litigation expenses' make the award passed by the Tribunal and even by the High Court (in appeal) meaningless. It is, therefore, imperative that the officers, who preside over the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under Sections 166 of the Act are disposed of with required urgency 8 and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure. The amount of the compensation in such cases should invariably include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited MANU/SC/0146/1995:
(1995) 1 SCC 551, this Court while dealing with a case involving claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward v. James (1965) - All ER 563, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (page 446) and observed:
"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance, (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial, (iii) other material loss. So for non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future, (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e, on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life".
In the same case, the court further observed:
"In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards".
In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka MANU/SC/0803/2009: (2009)6 SCC 1, the three-Judge Bench was 9 dealing with a case arising out of the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While enhancing the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore, the Bench made the following observations which can appropriately be applied for deciding the petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act:
"At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-...-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution ensures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity".
In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan Manu/SC/1303/2009: (2009) 13 SCC 422, this Court reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be just and also identified the factors which should be kept in mind while determining the amount of compensation. The relevant portions of the Judgment are extracted below:
The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms.
In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Limited Manu/SC/0777/2010: (2010) 10 SCC 254, the Court considered the plea for enhancement of compensation made by the Appellant, who was a student of final year of engineering and had suffered 70% disablement in a motor accident. After 10 noticing factual matrix of the case, the Court observed:
"We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as ho was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered".
In Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar Manu/SC/1018/2010: (2011) 1 SCC 343, the court considered some of the precedents and held:
"The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ('the Act', for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as for as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and hie inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned".
In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Court in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but 11 for the disability caused due to the accident".
The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages):
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising;
a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non Pecuniary damages (General damages):
(iv) Damages for pain suffering and trauma as a consequence of
the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), iii) (a) and (iv).
Pecuniary damages (Special damages):
Loss of Notional Income:
10 Petitioner alleged that on 18.6.2010 he was 17 years old and was student of 11th class. Due to the accident he suffered grievous injuries i.e. fracture in his right leg and foot. He was admitted in Dr. Mukesh Orthopedic And Trauma Centre, where 12 he was operated by Dr. Mukesh Aggarwal and injured was discharged from hospital on 22.6.2010. The discharge summary is proved on record as Ex.PW1/B. The petitioner was again admitted to the said hospital on 31.3.2011 and discharged on 2.4.2011 and the discharge summary was proved as Ex.PW3/A. 11 Hence as proved on record due to his injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner failed to resume his studies etc. for a long time. Furthermore the petitioner claimed that due the accident he suffered 16% permanent physical disability as per disability calculation card Ex.PW5/X and the disability certificate Ex.PW5/1 issued from AIIMS Hospital, Delhi in relation to his left lower limb and he cannot walk as a normal person due to his disability. Petitioner failed to place on record his educational qualification proof etc., relying upon the precedent of Hon'ble Delhi High Court raising a legal fiction, the assumed income of injured is treated based upon Minimum Wages applicable to a unskilled labour since the no document proved on record. Hence I consider the injured to be earning minimum wages of Rs. 5278/- per month for the calculation of loss of income and I grant him loss of notional income for the period of 4 months i.e. Rs.
21,112/- (5278 X 4= 21,112/-).
Loss of future prospects:
12 Petitioner alleged that on 18.6.2010 he was 17 years of age as held above.
He submitted that he was student of 11th standard but he has failed to produce any proof regarding his qualification etc. hence he has been considered to be a unskilled labour to be earning minimum wages @ Rs. 5278/- per month. Due the accident he suffered 16% permanent physical disability as per certificate Ex.PW5/1. The sudden disaster brought a great shock and suffering to the petitioner. Moreover, the family of injured spent on his treatment and the same is still going on. His job profile has also been hampered/affected badly due to this accident. The life of the petitioner has become hell due to the conduct of respondent No.1 besides severe economic loss. The income of petitioner has also affected and he would not be able to live a 13 normal life.
13 Since injured was 17 years of age at the time of accident, so keeping in view his age about 17 years at the time of accident, future prospectus of 50% has to be added in her income as per Rajesh & others Vs. Rajbir Singh etc. judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision reported in Civil Appeal No. 3860/2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24825/2010 decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S.Singhvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde on 12th April 2013. Hence the monthly income of injured comes to Rs. 7917/- (5278/- + 50%).
14 As proved above, the age of the petitioner was 17 years of age on the date of accident. Hence in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298, multiplier of 18 has to be applied to count loss of earning capacity.
15 Petitioner might have suffered functional disability to an extent of 16 % but his deemed earning capacity cannot be treated as reduced to such an extent. This court is concerned with the effect of the permanent disability on the deemed earning capacity of the injured and has to find out the effect of such disablement of the particular limb on the functioning of the entire body. Accordingly after relying upon the latest decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in case Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 8981/2010 decided on 18.10.2010, I deem it proper to treat this disability to an extent of half of 16% i.e. 8 % only for determination of compensation in respect of loss of deemed future earning capacity.
16 As no deduction from income has to be taken towards personal expenses in case of injury as per decision of Delhi High Court in Bimla Vs. Gopal MAC. APP No. 1028/2006 decided on 22.3.2010 so the total loss of future income or earning capacity comes to Rs. 1,36,805.76 paise as per the formula (7917 X 12 X 18 X 8 %). Accordingly petitioner is granted loss of future 14 prospects at Rs. 1,36, 805/- (in round figure).
Medical Expenses:
17 Petitioner got the medical treatment from the government hospital but have spent amount on medicines which had been purchased from private medical stores and has produced certain bills which are placed on record and as per the medical treatment record and bills placed on record and proved as Ex.PW1/F (colly) which are amounting to Rs. 53,432/-. The same has not been challanged by the respondents. Hence I grant him the actual medical expenses amounting to the sum of Rs. 53,432/-.
Attendant Charges:
18 Furthermore the petitioner/injured has claimed that due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question he suffered permanently disability to the extent of 16% in relation to his right lower limb. He was forced to engage the services of the attendant to whom a sum of Rs 3500/- per month were paid by him. In support of his claim, he examined the attendant himself namely Sh. Harish Thappa as PW2. Who deposed that he worked as attendant for petitioner/injured since 27.6.2010 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. He was cross examined by the counsel for insurance company and in the cross examination he deposed that he was residing at the address mentioned in the affidavit for the last two years. He further deposed that he got Rs. 3500/- per month in cash alongwith food and clothes. He had not signed any receipt. He further denied the suggestion that he was residing as an attendant to Imran Khan, hence his deposition remained unshaken on record. In view of same, I grant attendant charges to the tune of Rs. 3500/- per month to the petitioner for the period of four month which comes to Rs. 14,000/-.
15Special diet and Conveyance charge:
19 Petitioner has alleged that he spent money on conveyance and special diet. Though no proof of spending upon special diet is brought on record. In case of sickness and serious injury, a special diet in the form of healthy food, juices, milk etc. is provided instead of or in addition to the normal food. Normally each receipt or bill in respect of conveyance and special diet is not retained by the people. Hence in absence of any sufficient evidence and complete documentary evidence in support of special diet and conveyance, I am of the view that maximum petitioner can be paid Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) Pain and Sufferings etc:
20 As proved on record the petitioner was aged 17 years old student at the time of accident and he suffered grievous injuries and permanent disability to the extent of 16% as per medical record proved on record. Hence judicial notice can be taken of the fact that due to such type of injuries as is suffered by the petitioner, he could not perform her daily routine work properly. Difficulty and inconvenience must have arisen to her to perform even daily personal routine acts due to said accident. She must have suffered great pain and sufferings and also had undergone some shock of accident. Such type of non pecuniary losses cannot be assessed in terms of money but keeping in view the age, status and condition of the petitioner, hospital visits etc. she is granted lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, inconvenience, mental shock etc. as per the judgment of Govind Yadav's case (Supra).
16Loss of amenities etc. 21 As held above the petitioner was 17 years of age at the time of accident. He suffered permanent physical disability, it is opined as per Ex. PW5/1 he suffered physical permanent disability to the extent of 16% in relation to his right lower limb. His routine work has also been hampered/affected badly due to this accident. Difficulty and inconvenience have arisen to his to perform even daily personal routine acts due to said accident. Hence I award him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities etc. as per the judgment of Govind Yadav's case (supra).
Loss of enjoyment, shortening of life and loss of marriage prospects.
22 As held above the petitioner was 17 years old at the time of accident and due to the accident she suffered permanent physical disability of 16% in relation to his right lower limb which has been taken to be 8% permanent physical disability. His routine work has also been hampered/affected badly due to this accident. Difficulty and inconvenience have arisen to him to perform even daily personal routine acts due to said accident. During the rest of her life she will not be able to live like normal human being and will not be able to enjoy the life and he has to live with the stigma of accident for the rest of his life and he might be alive 40/50 more years. Furthermore, he is unmarried and due to the injuries sustained in the accident and the disability to the extent of 16 % in relation to his right lower limb he has also lost his marriage prospects. Hence I award him a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the shortening of life and enjoyment of life etc. and also a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of marriage prospectus as per the judgment of Govind Yadav's case (supra).
23 As it is admitted that the offending vehicle i.e bearing No. DL 1PB 4698 was duly insured with the insurance company/respondent No.3 at the time of accident and the respondent No.1 was having a valid driving licence. Hence in the absence 17 of any statutory defence of insurance company the same is liable to give compensation to the petitioner.
24 In view of the above discussions, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner, by holding that she is entitled to get the following total compensation from the respondent no. 3/insurance company only.
Pecuniary damages (Special damages):
Loss of income---------------------------------------------Rs. 21,112/- Loss of future prospects--------------------------------Rs. 1,36,805/- Medical expenses-----------------------------------------Rs. 53,432/- Attendant charges----------------------------------------Rs. 14,000/- Special diet expenses------------------------------------Rs. 10,000/- Conveyance charges-------------------------------------Rs. 10,000/-
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) Pain, suffering, mental shock and trauma---------Rs. 50,000/- Loss of amenities------------------------------------------Rs. 1,50,000/- Loss of shortening and enjoyment of life etc.----Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of marriage prospectus etc.--------------------Rs. 1,00,000/-
__________
Total Rs. 6,45,349/-
ISSUE No. 3 (Relief):-
25 Petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 6,45,349/- alongwith interest @
9% as per the judgment in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Bhudhia Devi and others reported in 2010 ACJ 2045, from filing of DAR i.e 17.7.2010 till the payment is made by the respondent No. 3/insurance company within 30 days from the date of this award alongwith accrued interest.18
26 It is further ordered that out of the total compensation amount Rs. 10,000/-
be released to the petitioner through his saving bank account and remaining compensation amount with upto date interest be kept in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner initially for the period of five years (thereafter it be renewed from time to time) with SBI, Tis Hazari Court branch, Delhi, with liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the monthly interest on the said FDR by way of saving bank account of the petitioner. The said FDR shall not be encashed without permission of the court. No ATM facility, loan or advance shall be granted to the petitioner on the FDR. The original FDR be kept by the bank itself and only the attested copy of said FDR be handed over to the petitioner.
27 Copy of this judgment be given to petitioner and counsel for respondents.
28 Put up for payment on 11.09.2013.
Announced in the open (D.K. MALHOTRA)
Court on 13.08.2013 JUDGE, MACT (NORTH-II)
DELHI
19
MACT No. 1033/10
13.08.2013
Pr. Counsel for the parties.
Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment, petition stands disposed off. Put up for payment on 11.09.2013.
Announced in the open (D.K.MALHOTRA)
Court on 13.08.2013 JUDGE, MACT (NORTH-II)
DELHI