Delhi District Court
Sh. Pushpender vs Mukesh Kumar (Driver) on 1 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 669/2019
Unique Case ID No. DLCT010120722019
Sh. Pushpender
S/o Sh. Satish Chand
H. No. A324, Gamri Extension,
Delhi110053.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Mukesh Kumar (Driver)
S/o Hari Ram,
R/o Village & Post Office Panchi Jattan,
P.S. Gannour, District Sonipat
Haryana 131001.
2. Delhi Transport Corporation (Owner)
C.W.1, K Camp, BBM, Delhi
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurance Company)
E85, Himalya House K.G. Marg,
Connaught Place, New Delhi110001.
......Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition/ DAR: 05.09.2019
Arguments heard on: 25.01.2021
Date of passing of Award: 01.02.2021
A W A R D:
(1) The Detail Accident Report (DAR) has been filed on
05.09.2019 and has been registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition
Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 1 of 24
Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU
KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:11:16
+0530
in respect of the accident which took place on 08.04.2019 at 5.29 PM at
Delhi Gate Red Light, Darya Ganj, Delhi wherein the petitioner
Pushpender had sustained Grievous injuries.
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) Facts in brief as emerged from the DAR are that on 08.04.2019, the petitioner/ injured Pushpender was coming to his home from his office on his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL6SDS8491 which was being driven by him and his friend namely Gopal was the pillion rider. At about 5.20 PM, when they were crossing Delhi Gate Red Light, a cluster Bus bearing registration No. DLIPC9827 which was driven by the respondent no.1 Mukesh Kumar in a very rash, negligent and carelessness manner, came from front side and directly hit the motorcycle due to which both Pushpender and Gopal fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Some public person made a call at 100 number pursuant to which PCR came at the spot and the injured were shifted to LNJP Hospital where the petitioner received treatment. According to the petitioner Pushpender, he received grievous injures in his leg and sustained disability and is unable to earn his livelihood. (3) The case of the petitioner is that at the time of the accident, he was working as C.A. (Self Work) in Gati Transport and was earning Rs.25,000/ per month. The petitioner has claimed that he had spent Rs.1,50,000/ on his medical treatment; Rs.25,000/ on conveyance; Rs.25,000/ on special diet and he would spend Rs.25,000/ for his future treatment.
Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 2 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:11:23 +0530 (4) The respondents no.1 and 2 i.e. Mukesh Kumar and Delhi
Transport Corporation have filed a joint reply to the DAR wherein it is averred that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in the present case and false and frivolous case is registered against the driver of the vehicle by the police officials. It is also averred that the offending vehicle was duly insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., at E85, Himalya House, K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi vide Insurance Policy No. 0411003118P1085 w.e.f. from 29.09.2018 to 28.09.2019. It is further averred that the driver of the offending vehicle Mukesh Kumar was having a valid driving license bearing No. HR 6920010195421 and if any liability is fastened upon the respondents in that eventuality the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is solely and absolutely liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner / claimant. It is also averred that the police officials have not investigated the matter in a proper manner and falsely involved the vehicle of the respondent in the present case.
(5) A detailed reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 United India Insurance Company wherein it is averred that after the accident, the concerned Investigating Officer has filed the DAR according to which the Investigating Officer had filed a Kalandra under Section 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act against Ravinder Singh Chauhan (owner of the Motorcycle) for allowing the motorcycle to be driven without Insurance. It is further averred that the Investigating Officer had also filed a Kalandra under Section 119/177 of Motor Vehicles Act against the petitioner Pushpender (driver of Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 3 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:11:30 +0530 motorcycle No. DL6SS8491) for Jumping the Red Light and in both the Kalandras the accused were convicted. It is conceded that the vehicle bearing No. DL1PC9827 was insured with the respondent vide policy No. 041103118P108580682 valid from 29.09.2018 to 28.09.2019 in the name of Delhi Transport Corporation covering the date of alleged accident on 04.09.2019. It is further averred that the liability is subject to terms, conditions, limitations and exceptions contained therein and Motor Vehicle Act and Motor Vehicle Rules framed there under. It is prayer by the respondent no.3 that as per Chapter 5.11 (4) of the claims Tribunal agreed procedure, permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act be granted to them (insurer) to contest the claim on all ground available to the alleged driver and the owner/insured without prejudice to Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act in case they failed to contest the claim or there is any collusion between the claimants and respondents no.1 and 2. The respondent no.3 has taken all the pleas/ defenses available to it under the law including under Section 134 C, 147 & 149 of the M.V. Act. It is averred that the diver of the motorcycle namely Pushpender had jumped the red light and was driving the motorcycle without insurance nor any helmet was seized by the Investigating Officer and therefore, Pushpender himself was responsible for the alleged mishap.
ISSUES:
(6) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, the following Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 4 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:11:37 +0530 issues were settled:
i. Whether the petitioner Pushpender sustained simple injury in the road accident which occurred on 08.04.2019 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Darya Ganj, Delhi? ii. Whether the vehicle bearing No. DL1PC9827 driven by Mukesh Kumar was involved in the abovesaid accident? iii. If so, whether the said accident was caused due to sole and rash negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing No. DL1PC9827?
iv. If the finding on issue no.1, 2 and 3 above in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled and from whom?
v. Relief. EVIDENCE: (7) In order to prove its case of the petitioner Pushpender has
examined himself as his sole witness as PW1. On the other hand, the respondents have not examined any witness despite having been granted an opportunity in this regard. For the sake of convenience, the testimony of Pushpender (PW1) is put in a tabulated form as under:
S. Witness Deposition No. Petitioner / Injured
1. Sh. Pushpender PW1 Sh. Pushpender Kumar is the injured in the present Kumar (PW1) case who in his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A has corroborated what has been earlier Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 5 of 24 KAMINI Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:11:45 +0530 stated in the DAR and placed its reliance on the following documents:
1. Discharge summary which is Ex.PW1/1 (3 pages).
2. Treatment papers which are Ex.PW1/2 (Colly, 5 pages).
3. DAR file site plan and other documents which are Ex.PW1/3 (Colly, 110 pages).
4. Medical Bills Ex.PW1/43 (Colly, 3 pages).
5. Copy of Aadhar Card bearing No. 231634776675 which is Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).
6. Copy of Driving License which is Ex.PW1/6 (Colly).
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, the witness has deposed as under: That on the date of the accident, he was coming from his office situated at Asaf Ali Road and was going towards his house situated at Gaamri, Delhi. That the accident took place at about 5.20 PM. That the place of accident is crossing having red light signals.
That the driving license Ex.PW1/6 is a renewed license which was issued on 13.09.2019.
That he has not placed on record the old license because he had lost the same in which regard an FIR was got registered.
That he has not placed the said FIR / NCR on record relating to the loss of the old license.
That the said FIR / NCR was got recorded after the accident in the present case.
That he was in his senses after the accident. That he was taken to Lok Nayak Hospital by the police.
That he is a Graduate (B.A.) but he has not placed on record any document with regard to his educational qualification.
That he was convicted and fined under Section 146/196 of M.V. Act and fined by the Ld. MM. That the kalandra filed by the police under Section 119/177 M.V. Act by the police is Ex.PW1/DX1 and the conviction slip is Ex.PW1/DX2.
That the police had seized the motorcycle but did not seize any helmet.
Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 6 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:11:57 +0530
That at the time of accident, he was working in transport company namely Gati Transport, having its office at 3/12, Asaf Ali Road, Near Delite Cinema, New Delhi where he was getting a salary of Rs. 25,000/ per month.
That he has not placed on record any document which shows his salary.
That he has not placed on record any document which shows that he has filed any income tax return for assessment at any point of time or that he is an income tax payee.
That the affidavit Ex.PW1/A has been drafted by his counsel as per his instructions.
That he had jumped the red light and on account of jumping of red light, the present accident took place.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that at the time of accident he and pillion rider were not wearing helmet and has voluntarily explained that his father took the helmet from the police station. That after seeing the judicial record the witness stated that there is no such document on record for handing over of the helmet.
That earlier he had stated in Ex.PW1/A i.e. the affidavit in para 3 that he is self employed and now he has claimed that he is working in a transport company.
That he is also employed with Gati Transport situated at 3/12, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi.
That he is having a tempo which is attached with Gati Transport and he transported the various articles to the destinations as per the order. That he is paid as per the work contract basis i.e. at Rs.1.60 paise per KG within a range of 10 Kilometers and after 10 kilometers the amount is doubled.
That he has entered into an agreement with Gati Transport Company for attaching his vehicle i.e. Tempo (Champion) bearing No. DL1LQ7976 which he had purchased about four years ago.
That he had purchased the said tempo on cash down payment after taking loans from his various friends and relatives and it is not on hypothecation or Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 7 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:12:10 +0530 financed.
That he has not placed on record any such agreement with the company.
That he has also not placed on record the document regarding the ownership of the said tempo which is not in his name and has voluntarily explained that he had purchased the same from the original owner and it continues to be in his name.
That he cannot tell the name of original owner of the tempo.
That he has not given information to any authority with regard to the purchase nor he has submitted any documents relating to the purchase to the authority as required under law.
That he has also not applied for change the name. The payment made by the company is deposited in his account.
That he has not placed on record the statement of account relating to the said deposit being made by the company in his account as claimed by him in para 3 of the affidavit Ex.PW1/A. That there is no referral by Lok Nayak Hospital for advance management to any other hospital. That he has placed on record all his treatment record and also with regard to his future treatment. That he has not placed on record any prescriptions for medical expenses, rest, conveyance and special diet.
That he has not placed on record any leave record. That he was never referred by Lok Nayak Hospital to any other hospital for higher management and he went to the other hospital of his own will.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(8) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels for the petitioner and the respondents. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and also given my thoughtful consideration to their contentions. My findings on the various issues are under:
Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 8 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:12:19 +0530 Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner Pushpender sustained simple injury in the road traffic accident which occurred on 08.04.2019 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Darya Ganj, Delhi?
Issue No.2: Whether the vehicle bearing No. DL1PC9827 driven by Mukesh Kumar was involved in the abovesaid accident?
(9) Onus of proving both the issues was upon the petitioner Pushpender. The case of the petitioner is that 08.04.2019 he along with his friend Gopal were returning home from their office on the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL6SDS8491 which was being driven by him (Pushpender) whereas Gopal was the pillion rider. At about 5.20 PM, when they were crossing Delhi Gate Red Light, a cluster Bus bearing registration No. DLIPC9827 which was driven by the respondent no.1 Mukesh Kumar in a very rash, negligent and carelessness manner, came from front side and directly hit the motorcycle due to which they both fell down and sustained injuries. According to the petitioner, in the accident he sustained Grievous injuries and had sustained disability.
(10) The petitioner has placed his reliance upon the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by the Investigating Officer and the documents attached along with it which are Ex.PW1/3. (11) In so far as the respondents no.1 and 2 are concerned, they do not dispute the accident. Rather, the respondent no.1 Mukesh Kumar in his statement under Section 165 of Evidence Act has specifically admitted that he was the driver of the offending bus bearing No. DL Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 9 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:12:28 +0530 1PC9827 and also admitted that the accident had occurred with his vehicle. He has, however, stated that the accident caused due to negligence of the driver of motorcycle who was crossing the road when his side traffic light was red.
(12) I have gone through the documents attached along with the DAR including the MLC of the petitioner Pushpender which shows that the injured Pushpender was brought to LNJP hospital by the PCR officials on 08.04.2019 at 5:34 PM with alleged history of road traffic accident near Delhi Gate Red Light at around 5:20 PM. As per the MLC the nature of injuries received by the petitioner Pushpender were Grievous in nature.
(13) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the petitioner Pushpender had sustained Grievous injuries in a road traffic accident which occurred on 08.04.2019 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Darya Ganj, Delhi involving bus bearing No. DL1PC9827 driven by respondent no.1 Mukesh Kumar.
(14) Both the issues are accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No.3: If so, whether the said accident was caused due to sole and rash negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing No. DL1PC9827?
Issue No.4: If the finding on issue no.1, 2 and 3 above in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled and from whom?
Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 10 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:12:35 +0530 (15) Onus of proving both the issues was upon the petitioner
Pushpender. The case of the petitioner is that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of bus bearing No. DL1PC9827. On the other hand, the case of the respondent no.1 Mukesh Kumar is that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of motorcycle who was crossing the road when his side traffic light was red.
(16) I have gone through the testimony of Pushpender (PW1) and the documents on record. I may observe that the petitioner Pushpender (PW1) in his crossexamination has specifically admitted that the place of accident is a crossing having red light signals. He has also admitted that he had jumped the red light due to which reason the accident took place.
(17) Further, perusal of the copy of site plan shows that the bus bearing No. DL1PC9827 was going from J.L.N. Marg to N.S. Marg and the motorcycle bearing No. DL6SS8491 was going from Asaf Ali Road to J.L.N. Marg and the spot of accident is middle of Delhi Gate Crossing Red Light.
(18) The Mechanical Inspection Report of the motorcycle bearing No. DL6SS8491 shows that there were following fresh damages:
i. Right side legguard and rear shocker was scratched. ii. Let Side legguard, handle grip and clutch lever were scratched.
iii. Right side foreguard was bend.
Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 11 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:12:43 +0530 (19) On the other hand, the Mechanical Inspection Report of bus
bearing No. DL1PC9827 show that front bumper of right side was broken and dislocated.
(20) I may also observe that along with the DAR, the Investigating Officer has also filed a Kalandra under Section 119/177 of Motor Vehicles Act against the petitioner Pushpendar Kumar the driver of motorcycle no. DL6SS8491, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that during investigations of the case, the CCTV Footage of the area was checked and it was found that the motorcycle driver Pushpender Kumar had jumped the Red Light. The petitioner Pushpender (PW1) has also admitted in his crossexamination that he was convicted in the Kalandra under Section 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act (Ex.PW1/DX1) and fine had been imposed upon him by the Ld. MM.
(21) Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 has also tried to raise a defence that the petitioner Pushpender was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. He has placed his reliance upon the crossexamination of the petitioner Pushpender (PW1) wherein he has admitted that the driving license Ex.PW1/6 was issued on 13.09.2019 and that he has not placed on record the old license nor placed the FIR/ NCR relating to loss of the old license. In this regard, I may note that the Investigating Officer had invoked the provisions of Section 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act against the owner of accidental motorcycle bearing No. DL6SS8491 namely Satish Chand the father of petitioner Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 12 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:12:50 +0530 Pushpender, the vehicle being not insured. Perusal of the said Kalandra shows that father of the petitioner had produced a photocopy of RC and Driving License of the injured but he could not produce the Insurance Papers of the motorcycle. This defeats the ground raised by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 that the petitioner Pushpender was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. (22) This being the background, I hereby hold that the accident was not caused due to sole and rash negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing No. DL1PC9827, rather it was the petitioner Pushpender Kumar the driver of motorcycle No. DL6SS8491 who is liable for Contributory Negligence.
(23) Now coming to the aspect of the compensation. The petitioner Pushpender is seeking a compensation to the tune of Rs.3,15,000/ by claiming that he was working as C.A. (self work) in Gati Transport and was earning Rs.25,000/ per month; Rs.50,000/ towards medical expenditure (though in his affidavit of evidence the petitioner claimed medical expenses of Rs.1,50,000/); Rs.25,000/ for Conveyance charges; Rs.25,000/ for Special Diet; Rs.15,000/ for Attendant charges; Rs.75,000/ for loss of income, Rs.1,00,000/ for mental and physical shock and Rs.25,000/ towards loss of amenities of life. (24) I have considered the arguments advanced before me and the evidence on record. I may note that the petitioner Pushpender (PW1) in his crossexamination has claimed that he is a Graduate and has admitted that he has not placed on record any document showing his educational qualification. He has further admitted that he has not placed Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 13 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:12:59 +0530 on record any document which shows his salary. According to him, he has not placed on record any document to show that he is an Income Tax Payee. The petitioner has also admitted he has placed on record all his treatment record and also with regard to his future treatment; that he has not placed on record any prescriptions for medical expenses, rest, conveyance and special diet; that he has not placed his leave record; that he was never referred by Lok Nayak Hospital to any other hospital for higher management and went to other hospitals of his own will. (25) Coming first to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner.
Perusal of the copy of MLC of the petitioner/ injured Pushpender shows that on local examination there were no fresh injuries. However, the X Ray Report shows that fracture of mid shaft of tibia and right fibula was noted which injury was opined to be Grievous in nature. The petitioner has also placed on record the Discharge Summary and medical bills of Kosmos Superspecialty Hospital & Advanced Trauma which are Ex.PW1/2 showing that the petitioner had incurred a total sum of Rs.32,500/ towards medical expenses. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner Pushpender is entitled to medical expenses to the tune of Rs.32,500/.
(26) In so far as the income of the petitioner/ injured is concerned, the petitioner Pushpender claimed that he was working as C.A. (self Work) in Gati Transport. However, he has in his crossexamination specifically admitted that he has not placed on record any proof of his income or employment or with regard to his educational qualification. He has also admitted that he has not placed on record any leave record.
Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 14 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:13:13 +0530
There being no document of employment and income of the injured/ petitioner, I hold that the minimum wages for Unskilled Labour as on the date of accident is taken as income of the petitioner Pushpender i.e. Rs.14,468/ per month. Further, keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, he is held entitled for loss of income for Two Months i.e. Rs.28,936/ (Rs.14,468/ X 2). (27) In so far as the Special Diet expenses, Conveyance Charges and Attendant Charges are concerned, I may note that the petitioner has not placed on record any document showing any expenses incurred towards the same.
(28) Now coming to the aspect of Disability of the petitioner. Though in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A, the petitioner Pushpender has stated that he had sustained disability and is unable to earn his livelihood, yet there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had suffered any disability on account of the accident in question. Even otherwise, when the petitioner Pushpender had appeared before this Court for recording his Financial Statement, this Court has not noticed any disability with the petitioner. (29) Further, since the petitioner Pushpender has been held liable for Contributory Negligence, therefore, in my considered view 20% of the entire compensation amount shall be liable to be deducted towards contributory negligence.
(30) Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principals and guidelines governing Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 15 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:13:23 +0530 the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees)
Expenditure on treatment 35,000/
Expenditure on Conveyance 10,000/
Expenditure on Special Diet 10,000/
Loss of Income for two months 28,936/
Mental, Physical Shock, Pain & Sufferings 30,000/
Total 1,13,936/
Contributory Negligence @ 20% 1,13,936 - 22,787 =
91,149/
Round Off: 91,200/
(31) Since, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy reported in 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), it is held that claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 05.09.2019 till realization of the amount.
Disbursement:
(32) The Financial Statement of the petitioner Pushpender was recorded on 03.03.2020 according to which his monthly expenses are about Rs.25,000/ to Rs.30,000/.
(33) Considering the quantum of amount, on realization of the award amount, the entire award amount plus interest be released to Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 16 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:15:30 +0530 the petitioner in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 decided on 07.12.2018, the entire amount shall be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM Card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
(34) In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 07, 2018, Summary of the Award in the prescribed FormatIV B is as under: SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 08.04.2019
2. Name of the Injured: Pushpender Kumar
3. Age of the Injured: 29 Years
4. Occupation of the Injured: Private Job (not proved)
5. Income of the Injured: Rs.14,468/ per month (Minimum wages for Unskilled Worker)
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken by LNJP Hospital & Kosmos the injured: Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization: 08.04.2019, 30.04.2019 to 03.05.2019 Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 17 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:15:55 +0530
9. Whether any permanent No disability? If yes, give details:
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment (as per 35,000/ medical bills)
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance (no 10,000/ document)
(iii) Expenditure on Special Diet (no 10,000/ document)
(iv) Cost of Nursing/ attendant Nil
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of income (for Two Months) 28,936/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any Nil special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and physical 30,000/ shock
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 18 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:16:08 +0530
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and Nil nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation Nil of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in Nil relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income x % Nil earning capacity x Multiplier)
14. Total 1,13,936/ Contributory Negligence @ 20% 1,13,936 - 22,787 = 91,149/ TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.91,149 Round Off: 91,200/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount upto the date of award 11,516/ (One year, four months and twenty six days)
17. Total amount including interest 1,02,716/
18. Award amount released As mentioned in para No.32
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para No.32
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in amount of the claimant(s) para No.32
21. Next date for compliance of the award 05.03.2021 Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 19 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:16:16 +0530 Liability:
(35) Since the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 Mukesh Kumar and registered in the name of respondent no.2 Delhi Transport Corporation whereas same was insured with respondent no.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd., all shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner Pushpender but since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 as on the day of accident, it is respondent no.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. who is ultimately held liable to indemnify the insurance and to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner under the statutory liability.
(36) Both the issues are accordingly disposed off.
RELIEF:
(37) The offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Hence, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.91,200/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 05.09.2019 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioners failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(38) The Insurer of the offending vehicle is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 20 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:16:26 +0530 notice in respect of deposit of the amount to the petitioner/claimant and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days. (39) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. for compliance within the time granted. Respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest, with a copy to his counsel namely Ms. Babita Tyagi Advocate, Chamber No.497, Civil Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Mob. No. 9811396345. (40) Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 05.03.2021 in the event of nonreceipt/ deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(41) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the judgment titled Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. decided by Hon'ble High Court on December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(42) File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:16:50 +0530 Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 01.02.2021 PO, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 21 of 24 FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 08.04.2019 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal 10.04.2019 (Clause 2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company Not mentioned in the DAR (Clause 2) 4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate Not Mentioned in the DAR (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer 05.09.2019 before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10) 6 Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 05.09.2019 Company. (Clause 11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the Claimant(s) 05.09.2019 (Clause 11) 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects?
Yes (Clause 16) 9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR No removed later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the documents Yes filed with DAR? (Clause 4) 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, No whether any action/direction warranted? 12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 17.09.2019 by the Insurance Company (Clause 20) 13 Name, address and contact number of the Sh. Pankaj Prakash, Manager Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
(Clause 20) Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 22 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:16:58 +0530 14 Whether the Designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 22) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer No of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23) 16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer No offer given by Insurance of the Insurance Company. (Clause 24) Company 18 Date of award 01.02.2021 19 Whether the award was passed with the consent No of the parties? (Clause 22) 20 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes savings bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18) 21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank 03.03.2020 not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18) 22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account(s) near 20.10.2020 the place of their residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card?
(Clause 18) 23 Permanent residential address of the As per award claimant(s). (Clause 27) 24 Details of savings bank account(s) of the A/c No. 39524275994 claimant(s) and the address of the bank with the State Bank of India, Chandni IFSC Code. (Clause 27) Chowk Branch, Delhi IFSC: SBIN0000631 Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 23 of 24 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:17:06 +0530 25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near their place of residence? Yes (Clause 27) 26 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the Yes. The financial statement of time of passing of the Award to ascertain the petitioner has been his/their financial condition? (Clause 27) recorded.
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, Judge MACT01, Delhi, SBI, name and branch of the bank of the Claims Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Tribunal in which the award amount is to be Customer No. 80761891696, deposited/ transferred.
Code No. 00726
Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU
KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:17:24
+0530
(Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Judge, MACT01 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 01.02.2021
Pushpender Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 669/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 24 of 24