Delhi District Court
Zuhaib Ali Beg vs Khalik on 24 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 263/2019
FIR no. 87/2019
PS : Hapur Nagar, UP
U/s : 279/338/304A IPC
CNR No. DLSE010024362019
Zuhaib Ali Beg
S/o Mohd. Akram Ali Beg
R/o S-6/11, First Floor,
Joga Bai Extension,
Jamia Nagar, Okhla,
New Delhi.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Khalik
S/o Nanu
R/o H. No. 151, Saina,
PS Simbhawali, Garh Mukteshwar,
Hapur, UP -245207.
.....R-1/ driver
2. Shafik
S/o Sh. Jarif
R/o H. No. 657, Tyodi-13,
Bissa-1, Modi Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP -201001
.....R-2/ Owner
3. ICICI Lombard Pvt. Ltd.
Fourth Parsavnath Capital Tower
Bhai Vir Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
..... R-3/Ins. Co.
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 1 of 49
Date of accident : 06.02.2019
Date of filing of DAR/Petition : 05.04.2019
Date of Decision : 24.02.2025
AWARD
1. Claim Petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of
Motor Vehicles Act 1988 seeking compensation for an amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. was
filed on 05.04.2019 by Sh. Zuhaib Ali Beg S/o Mohd. Akram Ali
Beg (hereinafter referred as the claimant), who suffered injury in
a road traffic accident, which took place on 06.02.2019 due to
rash and negligent driving of Eicher Canter Truck bearing
Registration No. UP-14FT-2721 (hereinafter referred as the
offending vehicle) which was being driven by Khalik S/o Nanu
(hereinafter referred as driver/ Respondent No.1), owned by
Shafik S/o Jarif (hereinafter referred as owner/Respondent No.2)
and insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company
Ltd. (hereinafter referred as insurance company/ Respondent
No.3).
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Briefly, the facts, as stated in the Claim Petition, are that
on 06.02.2019 at about 7.00 p.m. while petitioner along-with his
sister and parents were travelling from Moradabad to Delhi in
Alto Car bearing Registration No. DL6CP 2801, at a normal
speed on the correct side of the road, obeying applicable traffic
rules and regulations, an Eicher Center Truck bearing
Registration no. UP15FT 2721 (hereinafter referred as the
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 2 of 49
offending vehicle) being driven at a high speed and rashly
without blowing any horn and without proper look out towards
other people travelling on the road coming from Ghaziabad side,
dashed against the Alto car at Sabli Cut, NH-24, Uttar Pradesh,
because of which petitioner and his family members sustained
serious injuries. The injured persons were rushed to Saraswati
Medical College where mother as well as sister of petitioner were
declared brought dead while he, his father and brother were
admitted in the hospital for the treatment. It is stated that the
petitioner was later referred to Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma
Center for further treatment. It is stated that the petitioner was 19
years of age and a student and was also running an electrical shop
with an earning of Rs.20,000/- per month. It is asserted that the
accident occurred due to speedy and rash driving on the part of
driver of the offending vehicle. It is stated that the offending
vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 at the time of
accident and was owned by respondent no.2 and insured with
respondent no.3 company, therefore,all the three respondents are
jointly and severally liable for the wrongful act with the
petitioner. A sum of Rs.50,00,000/- has been sought as
compensation in this matter.
REPLY
3. In written statement filed on behalf of R-1 and R-2, the
averments in the petition were denied stating that the offending
vehicle had all the valid and genuine documents as on the date of
accident and therefore, there is no liability upon respondent nos.1
and 2 to pay compensation. It is also stated that the offending
vehicle was being driven with a slow speed with all the necessary
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 3 of 49
precautions by respondent no.1 who had a valid driving license
and therefore, there was no rash and negligent driving on the part
of respondent no.1.
4. In the written statement filed on behalf of insurance
company, it is conceded that the insurance policy is valid and
effective on the date of accident. Other general defences were
taken by insurance company.
ISSUES :
5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 18.01.2021:
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a
road traffic accident on 06.02.2019 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. UP-14-
FT-2721 driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured
with R3? OPP.
ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation and if so, to what extent and from
whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
6. An application for assessment of disability was allowed
against which claimant was examined by a duly constituted
Medical Board, which issued a Disability Assessment Certificate
dated 15.06.2023 certifying that injured has suffered Locomotor
as well as Intellectual disability with 72% permanent impairment
in relation to his whole body.
EVIDENCE
7. Matter was then listed for evidence before Local
Commissioner. Father of injured examined himself as PW1 and
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 4 of 49
tendered his evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon
Aadhar card of injured as EXPW1/1, his own Aadhar Card
Ex.PW1/2, copies of School Marksheet of class 10 th of injured as
Ex.PW1/3 (colly), Medical Bills and Medical Records Ex.PW1/4
(colly), Copy of Criminal Case Record as Mark-A.
8. Claimant has also examined Dr. Adarsh Kumar, Chairman,
Disability Medical Board, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma
Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi, as PW2.
9. None of the respondents chose to lead evidence in their
defence and matter was thereafter, listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
10. Final Arguments were advanced by the contesting
counsels. Ld. Counsel for claimant argued that the accident
happened only due to reckless driving of the Respondent no.1 at
the time of accident. He has also contended that injured has
suffered substantial permanent impairment and has difficulty
even in performance of basic routine tasks coupled with learning
difficulty as well as memory loss.
11. Ld. Counsel for insurance company has conceded that the
vehicle was duly insured. It is stated that the petition be decided
as per applicable legal principles.
DISCUSSION
12. On the basis of material on record and arguments
addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
"Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 5 of 49
traffic accident on 06.02.2019 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. UP-14-
FT-2721 driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured
with R3? OPP."
13. What is required to be ascertained is whether rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle resulted in accident which
caused injuries to the claimant.
14. It has been held in catena of cases that negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the
proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the
proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are
not applicable (support drawn from the case of Bimla Devi &
Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors [(2009) 13
SC 530, [Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India
Assurance Company Limited, [2001 ACJ 421 SC], [National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana cited as [2009 ACJ
287 Del].
15. PW1 Mohd. Akram Ali Beg, father of petitioner tendered
his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and affirmed that his son is
not in a fit medical state to appear and depose due to injuries
sustained in the said accident. PW1 deposed that on the day of
accident, he along-with his wife, daughter and his son were
travelling in their Alto car being driven by him at a normal speed
on the correct side of the road when the offending vehicle
coming from the opposite side hit their Alto car with great force
because of which all the family members sustained serious
injuries whereas his wife and daughter lost their lives. He was
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 6 of 49
cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for insurance company, who
chose not to put any question to him in respect of mode and
manner of the accident.
16. The FIR was registered on the same day on the statement
of Mansoor Khan, nephew of PW1, who detailed the accident
including specifications of offending vehicle mentioning the
details of the offending vehicle. The Site Plan indicates that the
offending vehicle transgressed through the divider and crashed
into the accidental vehicle plying straight on the main road on
one side of the road. The manner of accident as reflected in the
site plan is itself indicative of the reckless driving on the part of
respondent no.1 which caused the accident. The mechanical
inspection report is also indicative of fresh accidental damages
and corroborates the statement of PW1. There is no dispute about
the identification of the vehicle or the driver thereof.
17. There is no denial on the part of respondent no.1 or 2 that
the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident or that the
accident happened on account of some factors beyond their
control or due to negligence on the part of driver of the accidental
vehicle. NO evidence has been adduced by respondent no.1 or
respondent no.2 to contest the affirmations made by PW1. PW1
was not even cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-1. It is
settled that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the
witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him as
observed by Hon'ble High Court of India in the case of
Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3)
AD Delhi 310.
18. The testimony of PW1 with respect to the circumstances of
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 7 of 49
the accident and the speedy and reckless driving of offending
vehicle has remained uncontradicted and uncontorverted and
there is no reason to discredit the same.
19. In view of the discussion made above, it is evident that the
injured sustained serious injuries on account of unmindful and
reckless driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent
no.1/driver. Issue in hand is accordingly decided in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation,
if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP"
"The determination of quantum must be liberal, not niggardly
since the law values life and limb in a free country in
generous scales"
{as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Concord of India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nirmala
Devi (1979 )4SCC 365}
20. Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an
inquiry into the claim to determine the compensation payable and
pass an award. Relevant portion of Section 168 MV Act is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to
the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer)
an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim
or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the
provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall
be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall
specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or
owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by
all or any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where
such application makes a claim for compensation under
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 8 of 49
section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement
of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made
in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect
of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of
in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X.
21. "....Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been
battered." {as observed in the case of H. West and Son Limited
Vs. Shephard 1958 -65 ACJ 504 (HL, England)}. It recognizes
that the physical damage caused once cannot be fully undone.
Something which remains as an indelible permanent sign of an
unfortunate incident cannot be balanced merely by paying some
monetary compensation. The process of damage and the ugly
scars left on physical body and mental self, navigating through
the entire process post accident and the unintended but
compulsory turns that it brings in the course of life is indeed
painful and traumatic. It is also required to be underlined that the
damage is not restricted to the tangible injuries visible on the
body of the injured rather catapults the lives of his family
members also.
22. The assessment or grant of compensation is a small
attempt to render assistance to the injured to navigate through the
hairpin unanticipated sudden and traumatic turn in order to bring
some elbow space for him to move towards stability and
normalcy to the extent possible. The underlying principle
remains thus to make good the damage so far as possible as
equivalent in money.
23. Section 168 MV Act puts an obligation over Tribunal to
assess 'just' compensation with the object of putting the sufferer
in the same position as nearly as possible as he would have been
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 9 of 49
if he had not sustained the wrong. It is worthwhile to reproduce
certain observations made by Karnataka High Court in the case
of K. Narasimha Murthy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd ILR 2004
KAR 2471 as referred and relied in the case of Rekha Jain Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited Civil Appeal No. 5370-
5372 of 2013 which enumerates the milestones to be kept in
mind by the Tribunal in an endevour to assess just compensation,
at the same time acknowledging that any amount of money
cannot compensate fully an injured man or completely renew a
shattered human physical frame with the observations as under:
"16. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while
assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant
circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing
quantification of compensation. Further, they have to
approach the issue of awarding compensation on the larger
perspectives of justice, equity and good conscience and
eschew technicalities in the decision-making. There should be
realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the
possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of
all human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are
extensions of this primary right, while awarding
compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury is to be treated
as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The
amount of damages varies according to gravity of injuries."
24. It is also settled that the monetary assessment is a
methodology known to law as social and legal security to a
victim even though the nature of injuries and the individual
ramifications might vary in different cases, therefore, it is
understandable that one remedy cannot heal all. Further, the loss
is in the nature of deprivation and it is unlike a personal asset
with a price tag which can be simply awarded and therefore,
complete accuracy in making such assessment is not humanly
possible. The endevour is thus to make an assessment as best and
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 10 of 49
as fair as possible under the given circumstance. The uncertainty
of bringing justness to an assessment has been recognized, still
holding that substantial damages must be awarded. The
observations made by Lord Halsbury in the case of Mediana In re
1900 AC 113 (HL) give valuable insights into the aspect and
reproduced as under:
"......Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is
one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down
any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless
it is remitted to the jury or those who stand in place of the jury,
to consider what compensation in money shall be given for
what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary
case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in money
counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical
calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which
would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a
person has undergone by reason of an accident....... But
nevertheless the law recognises that as a topic upon which
damages may be given"
25. The uncertainty involved has also been recognized by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Jain (supra)
where observations of Lord Blacburn in the case of Livingstone
Vs. Rawyards Coal Company were referred as under:
".......where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in
settling the sum of money to be given... you should as nearly
as possible get at that sum of money which will put the party
who has been injured.. in the same position as he would have
been if he had not sustained the wrong...."
26. It is further observed by their Lordship in the case of
Rekha Jain (supra) as follows:
"41.....Besides, the Court is well advised to remember that the
measures of damages in all these cases 'should be such as to
enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his
misadventure'. The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper
approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what
contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as
would allow the wrongdoer to 'hold up his head among his
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 11 of 49
neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the
fair thing' is quite opposite to be kept in mind by the Court in
assessing compensation in personal injury cases."
27. It is also settled that the compensation is not granted only
for the physical injury but for the entire loss which results from
the injury in an endevour to place the victim in a position as close
as possible as prior to the accident (support drawn from National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017) 16
SCC 680 also in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343). It
is also settled as held in catena of judgments that the Motor
Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the object of
the Tribunal ought to be to assist the injured persons, (support
drawn from Helen C Rebello (Mrs) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation and Anr (1999) 1 SCC 90).
28. It is settled that an injured is required to be compensated
for his inability to lead full life, his inability to enjoy those
natural amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the
injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or
could have earned (support drawn from C. K. Subramonia Iyer
vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 as further referred
and relied in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and then in a recent
pronouncement of Sidram Vs Divisonal Manager United India
Insurance Company & Anr SLP (Civil) No.19277 of 2018).
29. What is required of the Tribunal is to attempt an objective
assessment of damages as nearly as possible without fanciful or
whimsical speculation even though, some conjecture specially in
reference of the nature of disability and it consequence would be
inevitable. {support drawn from the case of Raj Kumar (supra) as
referred and relied in case of Sidram (supra)}.
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 12 of 49
30. Observing that a measure of damages cannot be arrived
with precise mathematical calculations and that much depends
upon peculiar facts and circumstances of any matter, Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India elaborated upon the expression "which
appears to it to be just" in the case of Divisional Controller,
KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty & Anr. (2003) 7 SCC 197.
31. The observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance
Company Limited (2012) 12 SCC 274 provide valuable insights
into the factors to be weighed by the Tribunal for determination
of quantum of compensation, the relevant extract of which is
reproduced as under:
"10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority,
while determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep
in view the sufferings of the injured person which would
include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy
the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the
injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or
could have earned. Hence, while computing compensation the
approach of the Tribunal or a court has to be broad- based.
Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there
cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to
determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of
compensation the fundamental criterion of "just
compensation" should be inhered."
32. The compensation has been broadly delineated as
pecuniary and non pecuniary in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control India Pvt Ltd. 1995 AIR 755. It is worthwhile to
reproduce certain observations made therein:
"9....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
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 13 of 49
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 far 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."
33. The issue of determination of compensation in a personal
injury matter was extensively deliberated by Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) Relevant extract
of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder for further
discussion:
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal
injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, 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), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases
of injury, where there is specific medical evidence
corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 14 of 49
will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi)
relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or
loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under
Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve
reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the
evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses--
Item (iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding
need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-
pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves
determination of lump sum amounts with reference to
circumstances such as age, nature of
injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the
effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of
this Court and the High Courts contain necessary guidelines
for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses
some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings
on account of permanent disability--Item (ii)(a). We are
concerned with that assessment in this case.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES
34. Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves
reimbursement of actual amount spent on account of injury
suffered in an accident to undo the monetary loss, suffered by the
claimant, as ascertainable from the evidence on record. Given
hereunder are various heads under which compensation for
pecuniary damages is assessed:
(A) Expenditure on Medical Treatment:
PW1 deposed that petitioner sustained multiple injuries
including head injury and was referred to Jai Prakash Apex
Trauma Center, New Delhi on the day of accident itself from
Saraswati Medical College, where he was rushed immediately
after the accident. He deposed that the petitioner remained
admitted in Apex Trauma Center from 07.02.2019 till 01.03.2019
and thereafter, from 15.03.2019 till 25.03.2019 and later,
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 15 of 49
received treatment from Fortis Hospital, Okhla, where he
remained admitted from 04.06.2019 till 06.06.2019. He deposed
that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has already been spent on the
medical treatment. He has filed the medical treatment papers
including the relevant bills as Ex.PW1/4 (colly). Medical bills
placed on record including consultancy charges, pharmacy bills
as well as admission bills, compositely amount to Rs.65,935/-.
Sundry / miscellaneous expenses cannot be ruled out during the
admission in the hospital and subsequently also. Accordingly,
injured is awarded Rs.75,935/- (Rs.65,935/- + 10,000) as actual
amount spent on the treatment of injuries sustained by him.
(B) Expenditure on Conveyance:
Claimant has not filed any bill towards expenditure on
conveyance, however, PW1 has deposed that an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- has been spent upon conveyance. The nature of
injuries are grievous with 72% permanent disability (multiple
fractures with deformity in the left lower limb as well as head
injuries). As per the Discharge Summary, he remained in
comatose state for three weeks. He also had to undergo several
operative procedures during his stay in the hospital. He has been
admitted thrice as per deposition of PW1. Considering the nature
of injuries, he remained under active consultation post discharge
as well. It is evident that injured would have required to visit the
hospital frequently duly coupled with the family members or
support persons. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards
the head of conveyance.
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 16 of 49
(C) Expenditure on Special Diet:
Claimant remained admitted in hospital for about three
weeks post accident and then twice again post discharge. It is
evident that he would have required rich and nutritious diet. As
per the Discharge Summary, Endotracheal Tube in situ was
inserted and full Rhyles Tube Feeding was advised. Rhyles Tube
Feed Advise including low fat milk, egg, sugar, corn starch, high
protein supplement, refined oil, as a formula to be administered
twice a day at two hour interval was prescribed as part of
Discharge Summary. It also mentioned the method with the
feeding schedule and the procedure along-with advise of cleaning
of tube after every feed. Further as apparent from the procedure
detailed in Discharge Summary, it can be gathered that the solids
were to be ground into a paste, seived and then to be fed.
Readymade feeds were also prescribed. Other than that, juices,
soups, coconut water, custard milk, butter were also prescribed. It
is thus evident that parents of the claimant would have incurred
considerable expenses on special diet, prescribed and required by
injured for efficient healing. The nature of injuries coupled with
the duration of treatment is self-explanatory that petitioner would
have incurred considerable expenses towards special diet.
Accordingly, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded to claimant
towards expenditure on special diet.
(D) Expenditure towards services of Attendant:
(i) PW-1 / father of injured deposed that he had incurred
Rs.5,00,000/- towards attendant charges. He has conceded that he
has not filed any document in respect of the expense towards the
attendant charges. Injured has been assessed with 72% permanent
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 17 of 49
physical impairment in relation to the whole body having been
diagnosed as a case of Locomotor and Intellectual Disability.
PW2 Dr. Adarsh Kumar, Chairperson, Medical Disability Board
was summoned, who proved the Disability Certificate issued by
him as Ex.PW2/1. He opined that the patient would face learning
difficulty and memory loss which would effect his education and
he will also face difficulty in walking, running, climbing and
calculating etc. He also deposed that injured also has mild
impairment and mental retardation with mean IQ as 67 in
contrast with a normal person as IQ of 80 to 90. He also deposed
that the injured would face difficulty to manage on his own
because of both Locomotor and Intellectual disabilities. He also
opined that the injured would require an attendant for the rest of
his life and will not be eligible for the job of Police Constable or
Army due to disability. He also clarified that the patient can
write, eat and can perform all day to day activities, which require
only hand movements and petitioner can also apply for the
Government Employment under PWD Scheme if he has the
required qualifications. PW-1 also deposed that his son is still
undergoing treatment and unable to speak. It is thus evident that
services of atleast one attendant in such state would be required
to attend to his basic body and medical needs at all times of the
day for the rest of his life.
(ii) It is settled that the multiplier system should be followed
not only for determining the compensation on account of loss of
income but also for determining the attendant charges. {as
recognized in Gobald Motor Services Ltd. Vs. R. M. K.
Veluswami 9 AIR 1962 SC 1 as refereed and relied in Kajal Vs.
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 18 of 49
Jagdish Chand CIVIL APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2020 and Sidram
(supra)}
(iii) A similar case of Kajal (supra) where injured suffered
100% disability and was rendered to do any incapacitation to do
any activity for entire life, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
recognized the applicability of multiplier system for realistic
determination of attendant charges. Following observations
pertaining to the aspect under consideration are reproduced
hereunder:
"This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier method in various
cases like Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati 10
1971 AC 115 14and Ors.11, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors.12, Sandeep
Khanduja v. Atul Dande and Ors.13. This Court has also
recognised that Schedule II of the Act can be used as a guide
for the multiplier to be applied in each case. Keeping the
claimant's age in mind, the multiplier in this case should be 18
as opposed to 44 taken by the High Court.
25. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the basic
amount taken for determining attendant charges is very much
on the lower side. We must remember that this little girl is
severely suffering from incontinence meaning that she does not
have control over her bodily functions like passing urine and
faeces. As she grows older, she will not be able to handle her
periods. She requires an attendant virtually 24 hours a day. She
requires an attendant who though may not be medically trained
but must be capable of handling a child who is bed ridden. She
would require an attendant who would ensure that she does not
suffer from bed sores. The claimant has placed before us a
notification of the State of Haryana of the year 2010 wherein
the wages for skilled labourer is Rs.4846/ per month. We,
therefore, assess the cost of one attendant at Rs.5,000/ and she
will require two attendants which works out to Rs.10,000/ per
month, which comes to Rs.1,20,000/ per annum, and using the
multiplier of 18 it works out to Rs.21,60,000/ for attendant
charges for her entire life. This takes care of all the pecuniary
damages."
(iv) Similarly in the case of Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Vs.
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 19 of 49
Namita Sekhon & Anr, (2022) 8 SCC 489, the claimant suffered
100% disability and was awarded attendant charges applying the
appropriate multiplier on the rates as accepted in the case of
Kajal (supra). Following observations pertaining to the aspect
under consideration are reproduced hereunder:
"16. In view of the said legal position, the compensation can
be assessed in pecuniary heads i.e. the loss of future earning,
medical expenses including future medical expenses, attendant
charges and also in the head of transportation including future
transportation. In the nonpecuniary heads, the compensation
can be computed for the mental and physical pain and
sufferings present and in future, loss of amenities of life
including loss of marital bliss, loss of expectancy in life,
inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment,
frustration, mental agony in life etc.
"17. On perusal of the record out of the pecuniary heads
MACT has not awarded any amount in future loss of earning
even having 100% permanent disability while the High Court
granted Rs.6,00,000/ only for 10 years because the appellant is
now practicing as an advocate in the Court accepting his
earning Rs.60,000/ per annum. From the pleadings and
evidence brought, it is clear that the father of the appellant was
a Professor and the mother was an IAS officer. The claimant
has been nurtured and brought up in a status enjoyed by his
parents. He was planning to become an Executive or IAS
officer. On account of the injuries in temporal region and the
permanent disability suffered, he was unable to do his studies
as expected or planned. After sincere efforts he could have
passed the LL. B and started the advocate profession. A
judicial notice can be taken of the fact that for a proficient
advocate the person must be physically fit as he is required to
move frequently to attend the professional work reaching from
one Court to other, and for movements to complete other
professional commitments. Looking to the nature of injuries
and the permanent disablement which the claimant has
suffered, i.e., lower limb is completely paralyzed while his
upper limb is partially paralyzed having 100% permanent
disability resulting in bodily movements being hampered. The
capacity of the claimant being an advocate cannot be equated
with other practicing advocate having no deformity in the same
profession. The claimant is required to make extraordinary
efforts to attend the proceedings in the Court and to come up to
the expectations of the client. The disablement suffered to the
claimant is for whole life and in the said fact, in our considered
view, the future loss of earning calculated by the High Court
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 20 of 49
only for 10 years is not justified. If we accept the future loss of
earning Rs.5,000/ per month as decided by the High Court
which annually comes to Rs.60,000/ and apply the multiplier
of 18 as applicable looking to the age, then the sum comes to
Rs.10,80,000/, in the said head.
23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
nature of injuries in our considered opinion, the appellant is
entitled for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ in the head of loss of
amenities of life and marital bliss, pain and sufferings, loss of
enjoyment and loss of expectancy, Rs.1,00,000/ as awarded by
the High Court is maintained in the head of special diet. Thus,
in the nonpecuniary heads, the compensation as determined
comes to Rs.5,00,000/."
(v). Attendant charges were fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month in
the case of Sidram (supra) where permanent physical disability of
45% of whole body was certified by the doctors for an accident
in the year 2012.
(vi). PW-1, father of injured himself deposed that he incurred
expenses of Rs. 5,00,000/- compositely towards the attendant
charges. Considering the medical state of injured with impaired
body movement as well as impeded intellectual efficacy, it can be
inferred that the injured would require services of atleast 2
attendants in 24 hours. Considering the present scenario
pertaining to the prevalent rates towards availing the services of
attendant, the amount towards monthly attendant charges is
taken to be Rs. 10,000/- per month. PW1 has relied upon the
Aadhar Card of petitioner as Ex.PW1/2 and educational
documents as Ex.PW1/3, as per which, his date of birth is
30.08.2000. Therefore, the applicable multiplier as per the
mandate of judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the applicable
multiplier would be 18. Applying the standard multiplier method,
the attendant charges are calculated as under:
Rs. 10,000/- x 12 x 18 = Rs. 21,60,000/-
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 21 of 49
(vii) Accordingly Rs. Rs. 21,60,000/- is awarded under the head
of Attendant Charges.
(E) Loss of earning during the period of treatment:
(i) PW-1 deposed that his son was a student, studying in 10 th class
and also used to run an electrical shop under the name and style
Star Electrical Shop at S-103, near Pahalwan Chowk, Batla
House, New Delhi and used to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month. He
has relied upon marksheet of 10th class Ex.PW1/3 however, the
result is reflected as fail, therefore, same cannot be relied to his
benefit for the determination of the income. As per his Aadhar
Card Ex..PW1/2 and Aadhar Card of his father Ex.PW1/1 and as
per the address mentioned on the Marks Statement Ex.PW1/3,
claimant was a resident of Delhi as on the date of accident. As
already noted, his father deposed that claimant was running en
electrical shop in Delhi, therefore, it is evident that he was
working for gain in Delhi. As such, his monthly earnings are
assessed to be minimum wages for an unskilled worker
applicable in the NCT of Delhi as on the date of accident ,which
was Rs. 14,806/-.
(ii) As per Discharge Summary, injured remained admitted in
AIIMS Trauma Center from 07.02.2019 to 01.03.2019 and
subsequently again hospitalized for a period of 10 days in the
month of March itself. Later, he underwent procedure in Fortis
Hospital, Okhla and remained admitted for two days in the month
of June, 2019. He filed several consultation medical documents
as OPD patient till about October, 2019, which indicate that
injured was under active medical treatment for several months
post accident. Considering his prolonged hospitalization, nature
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 22 of 49
of injuries and the need for active medical treatment as evident
from the medical records as against the nature of job he was
performing prior to the accident, also considering that he was
rendered incapacitated to resume the said job post accident.
Therefore, he is awarded loss of income during treatment for a
period of one year post accident which is Rs. 14,806/- x 12 =
Rs.1,77,672/-.
(F) Loss of future earning
(i) It is settled that a person is required to be compensated not
just for the physical injury but also for the loss he has suffered as
well as the loss which he might entail for the rest of his life on
account of those injuries which he sustained in the accident. This
necessarily means that he is required to be compensated for his
inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy normal
amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the injury, his
inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
(Support drawn from the judgment titled as C. K. Subramania
Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair (1969) 3 SCC 64.
(ii) Disability Assessment Certificate was received in
compliance of order as per which injured was diagnosed with
Locomotor and Intellectual disability having suffered severe head
injury with right hip dislocation. As per the document Ex.PW2/X
placed on record by PW2, his Locomotor disability was assessed
50% and Intellectual/Neuro Psychological disability was also
assessed as 50% (Mean IQ indicative of Mild Mental
Retardation). Therefore, the total disability with respect to the
whole body was computed to be 72%.
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 23 of 49
(iii) Before proceeding further, it is important to understand as
to what disability means and also types thereof. This aspect has
been delved into by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar
(supra):
"8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to
perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a
human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary
incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found
existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation,
after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery
which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured.
Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of
some part of the body on account of the injury, which will
cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and
recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total.
Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to
perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could
perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some
of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity.
Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to
perform any avocation or employment related activities as a
result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise
from motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when
compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities
Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in
Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries
sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent
disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation."
(iv) The term 'disability' means the decrements to the
functional efficacy of body of injured whereas 'functioning'
encompass all the body functions and activities for an
independent life. Functional disability is to determine the extent
of loss or extent of restrictive functionality considering the nature
of activities required to be necessarily performed in efficient
discharge of duties and the limb effected. This computes the
extent of adverse effect of physical disability upon the functional
efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 24 of 49
earning capacity. The process entails understanding and
enumerating the skill set required for performing specific
activities. To sum up, functional disability basically measures the
extent of ability having been compromised to carry out basic
everyday tasks or even more complex tasks required for and
independent living. The limitations may occur on account of
disability in the personal sphere, in the social sphere and in the
occupational sphere. In the personal sphere it may encompass the
daily activities of a person, his body function and his
involvement in basis life situations. At the societal level, it could
mean difficulty in involvement and participation in social and
community activities interfering the interpersonal interaction and
relationship adversely impacting the civic life. When disability
restricts the vocation or employment avenues to make earning for
his living, it falls in the category of disability in the occupational
sphere. The disability might occur on account of age or any
illness and in the case at hand by way of an accident. A person
living a normal life in particular set of circumstance and making
his living by engaging in any work has suffered disability which
might impede his daily life activities, both on a personal and
social scale and might also impact his ability to continue earning
as much as before and his future employment avenues.
(v) What is thus required to be assessed is the effect and
impact of disability upon the working efficiency of injured and
whether it would adversely impact his earning capabilities in
future. It is settled that the Tribunal should not mechanically
apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of
economic loss or loss of earning capacity.
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 25 of 49
(vi) Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines for
the Tribunal to be able to arrive at an objective figure to quantify
the loss for the purpose of computing the compensation in the
judgment of Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant extracts of this
judgment for the purpose of further discussion are reproduced
hereunder:
"Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent
disability
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the
doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than
not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability
certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent
disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not
the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the
whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the
body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions
of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of
disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent
disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of
left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability
with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus
60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different
percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in
terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole
body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a
result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the
head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect
and impact of such permanent disability on his earning
capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the
percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of
economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases,
the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss
of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be
different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some
Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent
(percentage) of permanent disability would result in a
corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the
evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will
hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most
of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning
capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will
result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 26 of 49
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of
the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured;
and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of
money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the
standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may
find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result
of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the
percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course,
the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of
compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in
Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
[(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10
Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
[(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8
Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is
any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such
permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should
consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent
total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference
to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the
limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the
permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability
then there is no question of proceeding further and determining
the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal
concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed
to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual
extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the
medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent
disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on
the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal
has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on
in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as
a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for
awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of
life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession
and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The
third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally
disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 27 of 49
spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still
effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was
earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or
restricted from discharging his previous activities and
functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of
activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can
continue to earn his livelihood.
.
.
.
.
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
(vii) Further in the case of "Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC), the question at hand was deliberated and following observations as relevant in the context were made:
"In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 28 of 49 different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.
(viii) The question of assessment of impact of disability on the earning capacity has been dealt in several cases but it is understood that each case has to be evaluated on its contextual dynamics established by way of evidence at hand. It brings us to a question whether extent of permanent disability as medically determined can simply be taken to be the extent of functional disability and hence, the loss of earning capacity. It has been held in various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court that equating the two as a criteria would result in an inobjective and absurd compensation. There however, might be certain cases where the two would correspond to each other but it cannot be mechanically applied rather requires evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity.
(ix) In the case of Raj Kumar (supra), the physical functional disability of left leg was assessed to be 75% and total body disability at 37.5 %. In this case, functional disability was also assessed at 75% and it was observed that the extent of physical functional disability has to be considered so as to grant just and MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 29 of 49 proper compensation towards loss of future earning as the earning capacity of injured was totally negated having been rendered incapable of doing any manual work. It was also held that if permanent disability in relation to particular limb renders the injured permanently disabled from pursuing his normal vocation or any other similar work, there is no reason as to why compensation should be granted on the basis of physical disability in relation to whole body. In another matter of Syed Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 1052, where functional disability was considered to be 65% by Hon'ble High Court in case of a vegetable vendor whose right leg had to be amputated was set aside and it was observed that loss of limb is often equivalent to loss of livelihood specially in manual labour cases and determined the functional disability at 85%. In yet another matter titled as of Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 , injured suffered grievous injuries and remained in coma for about 2 months and was held to be permanently disabled to the extent of 70% with his right hand amputated whereas his loss of earning capacity was held to be 90%. Similarly in case of K Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Company AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2384, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, held that a tanker driver suffered 100% functional disability and incapacitated to earn as a tanker driver as his right leg was amputated from the knee. In this case, the Court referred and relied upon another decision given by it in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs Srinivas Sabata And Anr, 1976 AIR 222, in which a carpenter having suffered amputation of left arm from elbow was held to have suffered complete loss MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 30 of 49 of earning capacity. In the case of Pappu Deo Yadav (supra), injured suffered loss of an arm and therefore, was unable to carry out his functions as a typist / data entry operator and thus acknowledging the impact of injury upon the income generating capacity of victim, the extent of functional disablement and loss of income generating earning capacity was equated with the extent of permanent disablement as medically assessed at 89%.
(x) In the case of Sidram (supra), injured suffered paraplegia due to accident and was medically assessed with permanent disability to the tune of 45%, however, he was held to have suffered 100% loss of earning capacity.
(xi) PW2/Chairperson of the Disability Assessment Board placed on record document Ex.PW2/X, as per which, Locomotor disability of injured was assessed as 50% and Intellectual/Neuro Psychological disability was also assessed as 50% (Mean IQ indicative of Mild Mental Retardation). Therefore, the total disability with respect to the whole body was computed to be 72%.
(xii) The Disability Certificate was duly proved by Chairperson of the Disability Board as Ex.PW2/1. No dispute has been raised by the insurance company in respect of its genuineness, competency of the doctors constituting the Board, the principles and methodology adopted to assess and certify the impairment and percentage thereof. As already mentioned, PW2 has deposed that injured will face difficulty basic routine tasks like, walking, running, climbing as well as will face in learning, calculating and memory loss. He has also deposed that he can perform day to day activities with his hands. It is therefore evident that injured would MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 31 of 49 not be able to continue to perform the job, he was pursuing prior to the accident and would require constant nursing care and attention. PW2 opined that he would be eligible for government employment only if he has the qualification, however, as per the statement of marks, he could not clear the 10 th grade examination and because of the accident suffered total loss of studies as well as skill building to be able to prosper in life. It can be inferred that daily management of routine basic tasks would also be a milestone in his medical condition, therefore, expecting him to be able to walk out and earn for himself or his family does not appear to be a distinct possibility. Therefore, it is held that injured suffered with 100% functional disability and is totally bereft of any earning capacity.
(F1) Future Prospect:
(i) It is also held therein that future prospect (as laid down in the well considered judgment of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) shall be payable, not only in fatal cases but also in the case of permanent disability. The observations made in the said case as relevant to the context are reproduced hereunder:
"6. The principle consistently followed by this court in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These general principles have been stated and reiterated in several decisions.
7. Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683. This court referred to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 32 of 49 (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551; Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. Govind Yadav spelt out these principles by stating that the courts should, "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 for the disability caused due to the accident." These decisions were also followed in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty, (2018) 3 SCC 686. prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench decision in Jagdish was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant10 to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi11 is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.
(ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court further discussed several cases involving permanent disability and observed as under:
"20. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and compensation under various heads. .
.
What is to be seen, as emphasized by decision after decision, is the impact of the injury upon the income generating capacity of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg or arm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in relation to the profession, vocation or business of the victim; there cannot be a blind MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 33 of 49 arithmetic formula for ready application. On an overview of the principles outlined in the previous decisions, it is apparent that the income generating capacity of the appellant was undoubtedly severely affected".
(iii) PW-1 has filed Aadhar Card of injured as Ex.PW1/2 on record and Marksheet as Ex.PW1/3, as per which his date of birth is 30.08.2000, therefore, his age as on the date of accident was about 19 years. Since the injured was below the age of 40 years (at the time of accident) and was employed on a fixed salary, thus as laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be @ 40 % upon application of category of ''self-employed or on a fixed salary''.
(F2) Multiplier:
(i) The Multiplier Method was coined by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008, decided on 15.04.2009 to ascertain the future loss of income in relation to the age of the deceased, in order to bring about the uniformity and consistency in determination of compensation payable in fatal and serious injuries matters. Relevant observations with respect to the multiplier method in the above-mentioned case read as under:
The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed- up over the period for which the dependency is expected to MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 34 of 49 last."
(ii) The standard multiplier method was directed to be applied not only to ascertain the loss of dependancy in fatal accident case but also to determine future loss of earning in serious disability matters as well {as laid in the case of Raj Kumar (supra)}. In a recent Judgment of Pappu Deo Yadav vs Naresh Kumar, AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4424, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon and reiterated the principles laid in various judgments passed by it in the case of Sr. Antony @ Antony Swamy Vs. Managing Director KSRTC, Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 2018 and held that stereotypical or myopic approach must be avoided and pragmatic reality of life must be taken into account to determine the impact of extent of disability upon the income generated capacity of victim.
(iii) The income of the injured per annum as determined upon appreciation of evidence, thus, forms the multiplicand. A table of multiplier with reference to the age was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The appropriate multiplier, applicable in this case would be 18 (for age upto 25 years).
(iv) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(a) Annual income (Rs. 14,806/- x 12) = Rs.1,77,672/-
(b) Future prospect (40% of 1,77,672/-) = Rs. 71069/-
__________________
(c) Total = Rs. 2,48,741/
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs. 2,48,741/-
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 35 of 49
(e) Hence, the 'Total Loss of Future Income' shall be :-
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
100% (2,48,741/- X 18) = Rs. 44,77,338/- (G) Future medical expenses: (i) Given the medical condition of injured and the nature of
impairment, the need for constant medical reviews, attention, hospitalization and treatment looks imperative. It is significant as the Discharge Advice proved on record as part of discharge summary (Ex.PW1/2 colly) already made mention of possibility of seizures, meningitis and hydrocephalus. At this stage, any bifurcation or any fixed expenses cannot be made available to decipher any actual amount. The condition of injured is such that he would continue to require long term treatment, medical supervision and possibly hospitalization as well even to maintain his present level of medical health.
(ii) In support, observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, in case of Vijay Kumar Babu Lal Modi v. State of Gujarat (Deleted) & Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 2011 SCC OnLine Guj 7349 would be of guidance which are given as under:
"So far as future medical expenses are concerned, the amount claimed in the petition was to the tune of Rs. 2 lac, whereas the Tribunal has thought fit to award Rs. 25,000=00. We have noticed that the injured as on today is 100% disabled due to paraplegia. He has no control over his bowels or bladder. In such type of cases, treatment like physiotherapy, etc. needs to be given for a very very long period of time. The importance of physiotherapy for persons injured in road accidents has been elaborately stressed upon by the Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi (supra). It is hence important to account for all expenses incurred and likely to be incurred and award reasonable sum for each head. It is also important to remember MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 36 of 49 the decreasing money value. The life expectancy of the injured is also to be kept in mind. We feel that life expectancy of the victim in such a case can reasonably be assumed to be atleast 55 years, given the advancement in medical science, etc. The claimant's age on the date of the accident was 17 years, which means that the remaining period of life expectancy from that date of accident would be 38 years i.e. 1991 to 2029. We, therefore, propose to assess future medical expenses at about Rs. 1,000=00 per month. In that case, the adequate amount which can be awarded for future medical expenses would be Rs. 1 lac. We, therefore, enhance the amount of Rs. 25,000=00 awarded towards future medical expenses to Rs. 1 lac."
(iii). In another case of Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210, Hon'ble Supreme Court made observations in a similar context which are given hereunder:
"20. Insofar as "future treatment" is concerned we have no doubt that the claimant will be required to take treatment from time to time even to maintain the present condition of his health. In fact, the claimant in his deposition has stated that he is undergoing treatment at Apollo Hospital at Delhi. Though it is not beyond our powers to award compensation beyond what has been claimed (Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh [(2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523]), in the facts of the present case we are of the view that the grant of full compensation, as claimed in the claim petition i.e. Rs 3,00,000 under the head "future treatment", would meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, order accordingly."
(iv) In view of the discussion made above, considering the age of injured, present medical condition, nature of impairment, nature of complication which might arise, a lumpsum amount for meeting future potential medical expenses is granted to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
(i) Injured is entitled to both, pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary damages. As the name suggests pecuniary damages are designed to make good the pecuniary loss which can be ascertained in terms of money whereas non pecuniary damages MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 37 of 49 are general damages to compensate the injured for mental and physical shock, pain, suffering, loss of expectation of life, inconvenience, hardship, frustration, stress, dejectment and unhappiness suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in the accident. It takes into account all the aspects of a normal life which deluded injured on account of accident. Given the nature of heads covered, it is bound to involve guess work on the part of Tribunal involving some hypothetical consideration as well, primarily considering the special circumstances of the injured and the effect of those upon his future life.
(ii) Regarding non-pecuniary loss, following was stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12 (page 446):
"Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern: Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award.
(iii) In Common Cause, A Registered Society vs. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the object of an award of damages is to give the plaintiff compensation for damage, loss or injury he has suffered. The Court further held that the elements of damage recognized by law are divisible into two main groups: pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. While the pecuniary loss is capable of being arithmetically worked out, the non- pecuniary loss is not so calculable. Non-
pecuniary loss is compensated in terms of money, not as a MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 38 of 49 substitute or replacement for other money, but as a substitute, what McGregor says, is generally more important than money: it is the best that a court can do.
(iv). In the case of Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that if a collection of cases on the quantum of damages is to be useful, it must necessarily be classified in such a way that comparable cases can be grouped together. No doubt, no two cases are alike but still, it is possible to make a broad classification which enables one to bring comparable awards together. Inflation should be taken into account while calculating damages. The above two cases were also referred and relied in the case of A. Rupin Manohar Through Sh. S. Anandha ... vs Mohd. Ansari & Ors. MAC App. 602/2015 decided on 17 August, 2017 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
(v) To sum up, Compensation under non-pecuniary heads involves objective assessment of the damages in a bid to undo the loss, the injured would incur on account of his inability to lead a normal life and earn as much as he would, but for the injuries sustained. The whole idea behind assessment for damages for compensation is to put the claimant in the same position in so far as money can. The very nature of these damages, compulsorily involves some guesswork and hypothetical considerations, however, efforts should be made to adjudicate these on the basis of objective parameters rather than guided by subjective sympathy. The nature and severity of injury, the age, nature of disability are some of those parameters. Given hereunder are various heads under which compensation for non-pecuniary loss (general damages) is assessed:
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 39 of 49 (A) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma on account of injuries:
(i) The mental and physical loss cannot always be arithmetically computed in terms of money. These form the intangible losses suffered by injured for no fault of his. Although any form of human suffering cannot be equated in money, however, the object remains to compensate in so far as the money can compensate. Certain observations made by the Supreme Court of India in R. D. Hattangadi (supra) are relevant in the context:
"10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame.
(ii) Certain factors were also laid down for consideration in the case of The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs Mahadeva Shetty And Anr Appeal (Civil) 5453 of 2003 further relied in the case of Sidram (supra) for awarding compensation for pain and suffering. The observations made in the aforesaid case as relevant to the context are reproduced hereunder:
"113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 40 of 49 different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim. [See: Pappu Deo Yadav (supra)]
(iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Suresh (supra) observed as follows:
"2. ... There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance."
But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity. (as relied in the case of Jagdish Vs. Mohan AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 1347, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India).
(iv) Injured has been diagnosed with substantial Locomotor as well as Intellectual Disability on account of severe head injury and defomity in the left lower limb with left hip dislocation. Injured was a young boy barely 19 years of age when he met with an accident. He must be having his own dreams and MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 41 of 49 aspirations from life which were totally shattered post accident. Even his every day basic routine activities are severely restricted. There is no sense of normalcy left in his life. He is totally dependent upon support from other person for his even for his daily activities. He is bound to be frustrated and very angry on what he has become. He is unable to lend any supporting help to his aging parents rather has ended up becoming a burden on them even for basic sustenance. There is no sense of independence or freedom of movement as if, he has been relegated to be a prisoner for life. feeling of despair, hopelessness and helplessness must have engulfed him. The medical dictum of nearly no possibility of significant improvement in his living conditions must have totally shattered his love of life. It is evident that the accident has caused deep emotional and psychological scars on his mind and soul. As such, no amount can be stated to be sufficient to undo the suffering of injured, however, an attempt is being made to compensate the pain which has become rhythm of life, the unabated mental and physical suffering, the unabashed agony and trauma. An amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- is awarded to the claimant against pain, suffering and and trauma sustained in the accident.
(B) Loss of amenities of life:
(i) It compensates the victim on account of his inability to enjoy the basis amenities of life as any other normal person can, taking into account the age and the deprivation he would have to undergo and suffer due to injuries. Certain observations were made by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Vijaykumar Babulal Modi vs State Of Gujarat SPECIAL CIVIL MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 42 of 49 APPLICATION NO. 20488 of 2017 referred by HSC in the case of Sidram (supra) which is reproduced hereunder:
"It appears that the claim under this head is to the tune of Rs.3 lac. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum under the head 'loss of amenities'. We are of the opinion that this head must take into account all aspects of a normal life that have been lost due to the injury caused. As per R.D. Hattangadi's case (supra), this includes a variety of matters such as the inability to walk, run or sit, etc. We include here too the loss of childhood pleasure such as the ability to freely play, dance, run, etc., the loss of ability to freely move or travel without assistance. Then, there is the virtual impossibility of marriage as well as a complete loss of the ability to have sex and to have and nurture children."
(ii) In the case at hand, injured is a young man with substantial bodily disability. What to talk of amenities of life, he is destined to be dependent even for basic routine activities on others. He has lost sense of normalcy in life. His medical condition is such that it is bound to have devastating impact on all the aspect of his life. He would never be in a position to exercise personal choice even in basic matters. He is no longer an able bodied man who can freely move around, travel, dance, sing, eat what he wants talk to people, express himself, have friends, get married or nurture children. It is evident that he would not be able to live a wholesome life and enjoy the amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries suffered by him. It is also evident that there are virtually no chances of his getting married or enjoying life with life partner and have children. His marriage prospects are almost negated considering the medical circumstances he has been facing and likely to face in future. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities and Rs.5,00,000/- is thus being awarded for loss of marriage prospect.
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 43 of 49
35. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all concerned:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : As Rs.75,935/-
discussed above.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : As Rs. 50,000/-
discussed above.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : As Rs.2,00,000/-
discussed above.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.21,60,000/-
(v) Loss of income : Rs.1,77,672/-
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if NA
applicable) :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 100%
capacity in relation to disability: As
already discuss above.
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : NA
(viii) Loss of future income: Rs. 44,77,338/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Damages for pain, suffering and Rs. 10,00,000/-
trauma on account of injuries:
(ii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : N/A
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Rs. 5,00,000/-
(vi) Future medical expenses Rs. 5,00,000/-
(vii) Loss of expectation of life N/A
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 44 of 49
Total Compensation Rs.92,40,945/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation after deduction Rs.92,40,945/-
Interest As directed
below
36. It may be noted that in the judgment of Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no. 433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022 it was noted regarding rate of interest:
"25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for the applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding principles for the grant of interest. In Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148, the following was held while interpreting section 171 of the MV Act, 1988:-
Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc. into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the MV Act 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of the law. Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor Sec. 4-A(3) of Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 45 of 49 fixing are of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal of the High Court as indicated above."
37. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, including in the case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27 July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case.
38. The total compensation is Rs.92,40,945/-which shall be payable to the claimant along with to simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization of Award amount/compensation.
LIABILITY
39. It is evident that driver cum owner is the primary tort feasor. His authorised insurer has not raised any statutory defence alleging violation of terms and conditions of policy. In such eventuality, the Principal Award amount/compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization. (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount).
40. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 46 of 49 RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING, A/c No. 00000042706870765 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir along with calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner. Insurance company shall also furnish TDS certificate, if any to the petitioner.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
41. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Release of Amount
42. Out of the total award amount, Rs. 90,00,000/- is kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs.30,000/- each. Remaining amount shall be released in the bank account of injured near his place of residence.
43. The following directions are also given to the bank for compliance:
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 47 of 49
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(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.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(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 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 freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 06.02.2019 2 Name of injured Zuhaib Ali Beg 3 Age of the injured 19 years 4 Occupation of the Not proved MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 48 of 49 injured 5 Income of the injured Rs. 14,806/- Minimum wages, applicable in NCT of Delhi at the time of accident.
6 Nature injury Grievous injury (100% functional disability) 7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization 9 Whether any permanent 72% disability?
45. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be also sent to the DLSA and Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
46. Put up for compliance on 24.03.2025.
Digitally signed by SHELLYAnnounced in the open court SHELLY ARORA
on 24.02.2025 ARORA Date:
2025.02.24
16:30:54 +0530
(Shelly Arora)
PO (MACT)-02, South-East Distt.
Saket Courts, New Delhi
MACT No. 263/2019 Zuhaib Beg vs. Khalik Page No. 49 of 49