Delhi District Court
Pooran Chand (Dar) vs Jamaluddin (267/17 Slc) on 28 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 897/2017
FIR no. 267/2017
PS :Sunlight Colony
U/s : 279/338 IPC
CNR No. DLSE01-008695-2017
Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr.
Pooran Chand Meena
S/o Sh. Ram Pal Meena
R/o Itoli, Intoli, Alwar, Rajashtan
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Jamaluddin
S/o Ali Hasan
R/o Villa Shahjpura, PS Pisawa
Distt. Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.
...........R-1/ driver
2. Ten Travels Pvt Ltd.
Shop no.23, Nai Anaj Mandi, Kosli, Rewari,
Haryana
..............R-2/ owner
3. ICICI Lombard Pvt. Ltd.
F-14-20, United India Life Building
Cannought Circus, New Delhi.
..... R-3/Ins. Co.
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 1 of 54
Date of accident : 13.07.2017
Date of filing of DAR/Petition : 21.11.2017
Date of Decision : 28.03.2025
AWARD
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Detailed Accident Report was filed by police in terms of
provisions of Motor Vehicle Act in respect of injuries sustained
by Sh. Pooran Chand (hereinafter called the claimant) on account
of alleged rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing
Registration No. HR 47C 9746 (hereinafter called the offending
vehicle) driven by Jamaluddin (hereinafter called the Respondent
No.1) and owned by Ten Travels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the
Respondent No.2) and insured with The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. (hereinafter called the insurance company), which
is being treated as Claim Petition in view of the provisions
contained in such Act.
2. Preliminary information regarding accident in question
was received at PS Sun Light Colony on 13.07.2017 vide DD No.
02, upon receipt of which, ASI Ombir Singh along-with Ct. Arun
reached at the spot of accident at Sarai Kale Khan, Near Red
Light, where they came to know that injured had already been
taken to hospital by staff of ERV 57. Thereafter, they searched
for eye-witness, however no eye-witness was found. Thereafter,
both of them reached AIIMS Trauma Center and collected MLC
of claimant and FIR was got registered through Ct. Arun. In the
hospital, one eye-witness ASI Rishi Pal met the IO, who stated
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 2 of 54
that on 12.07.2017, he along-with injured was on patrolling duty
at ERV bearing Registration No. DL1CN 4605 and during such
patrolling at about 12.45 (midnight) from Noida Mod to Sarai
Kale Khan Flyover just before U-turn, they noted that beggars
were quarreling with each other under the bridge, as such, they
parked their vehicle to intervene and pacify them. It is stated that
Pooran Chand got down from the vehicle in order to reach out to
the beggars under the flyover, and when he was crossing the
road, suddenly a TATA Sumo Gold White Colour bearing
Registration No. HR47C 9746 came speedily from the side of
Noida Mod and hit Pooran Chand from backside because of
which claimant sustained injuries. Offending vehicle fled away
from the spot. Intimation of accident was given to Ct. Kallu and
Control Room, South-East. Injured was taken to AIIMS Trauma
Center by ASI Rishi Pal with the help of public persons.
Offending vehicle was also recovered upon pointing out of ASI
Rishi Pal, which was seized and taken into possession. Notice
under Section 133 M. V. Act was given to the owner of the
offending vehicle. Documents pertaining to the offending vehicle
were also handed over and found to be in order. Subsequently,
upon conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before
concerned criminal court while DAR was filed before this
Tribunal.
REPLY
3. Copy of DAR was supplied to parties. While respondent
nos. 1 and 2 have chosen not to file any reply, legal offer was
filed on behalf of insurance company.
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 3 of 54
ISSUES :
4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 23.04.2018:
i). Whether the injured Sh. Pooran Chand suffered
injuries in a road traffic accident dated 13.07.2017
involving vehicle bearing no. HR-47C-9746 driven by R-1
and owned by R2 and insured with R3 due to rash and
negligent driving of R1? OPP.
ii). Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation,
if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
5. 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 02.08.2024 certifying total 82.67% permanent disability.
EVIDENCE
6. In support of his case, claimant examined his wife Ms.
Hukam Bai Meena as PW1, who tendered her evidentiary
affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon documents Ex.PW1/1 to
Ex.PW1/17 and Mark-A to Mark-F.
7. PW-2 ASI Ashok Kumar was an official witness, who
proved letter issued by ACP Head Quarter, DCP, South-East as
Ex.PW2/A, salary record from March 2016 to July 2021 as
Ex.PW2/B, record of Establishment Branch as Ex.PW2/C (colly),
record of leave breakup, Character Roll Performa, certificate of
appointment, leave absence and break in service along-with leave
account as Ex.PW2/D (colly).
8. PW-3 HC Manish Kumar was also an official witness, who
produced documents regarding grounds of retirement taken by
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 4 of 54
claimant and proved attested copy of application given by
claimant as Ex.PW3/1, approval of application as Ex.PW3/2,
letter sent to CMO, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital regarding medical
examination of claimant as Ex.PW3/3, attested copy of report
from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital as Ex.PW3/4, copy of letter sent to
G.B. Pant Hospital regarding final opinion in medical
examination of injured as Ex.PW3/5 and correspondence
received from the said hospital as Ex.PW3/6, letter and
report/medical certificate as Ex.PW3/7, retirement order on
medical ground as Ex.PW3/8.
9. PW-4 Ct. Ashish was another official witness, who brought
attested copy of record regarding grant of non-productivity linked
bonus and proved the same as Ex.PW4/1, copy of compensatory
pay to non-gazetted personnel of Delhi Police as Ex.PW4/2, copy
of record of salary for the years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19,
2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 (till May, 2021) as Ex.PW4/3.
10. PW5 ASI Rish Pal Singh was the eye-witness, who
tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW5/A and relied upon
his Aadhar Card as Mark-A.
11. PW-6 Dr. Arun Koul, Associate Professor, Department of
Neurology, G.B. Pant Hospital, Delhi was also examined. PW6
deposed that he was a Member of the Board and had examined
the claimant and upon his examination, a Disability Certificate
was issued by hospital, which was exhibited as Ex.PW6/A
12. Thereafter, petitioner evidence was closed and matter was
listed for respondents evidence, however, no RE led on behalf of
any of the respondents and RE was closed vide order dated
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 5 of 54
05.11.2024. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
13. Final Arguments were advanced by the contesting
counsels. Ld. Counsel for claimant argued that accident happened
only due to reckless driving of the Respondent no.1. He has also
contended that injured has suffered substantial permanent
impairment and has difficulty even in performance of basic
routine tasks. He also contended claimant was constrained to take
voluntary retirement from the services due to injuries sustained in
the said accident. Ld. Counsel for claimant has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Umesh
Shah vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
[MAC.APP 227/2020 (DoD : 09.10.2023)].
14. 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
15. On the basis of material on record and arguments
addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
"Whether the injured Sh. Pooran Chand suffered injuries
in a road traffic accident dated 13.07.2017 involving
vehicle bearing no. HR-47C-9746 driven by R-1 and
owned by R2 and insured with R3 due to rash and
negligent driving of R1? OPP."
16. What is required to be ascertained is whether rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle resulted in accident which
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 6 of 54
caused injuries to the claimant.
17. 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].
18. PW5 Rishi Pal Singh, who was eye-witness and was on
duty with claimant on the day of accident, in his evidentiary
affidavit Ex.PW5/A, deposed that on 12.07.2017, he was
performing duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am at PS Sun Light
Colony. He further states that he alongwith claimant was on
patrolling duty in the area of PS Sunlight Colony and PP Sarai
Kale Khan area by Car bearing Reg. no. no. DL1CN 4605, ERV
57. He further deposed that they were returning having taken
round from Noida Mor towards Sarai Kale Khan at about 12:47
AM, and claimant parked the vehicle near U-turn as beggars
staying under the bridge were quarreling and while the claimant,
in order to make them understand had got down from the vehicle
and was crossing the road, offending vehicle being driven in rash
and negligent manner without blowing horn came from Noida
Mode to Sarai Kale Khan side and hit the injured from his back
side because of which claimant sustained serious injuries. He
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 7 of 54
also deposed that respondent no.1 fled away with the offending
vehicle from the spot and he (PW5) immediately intimated Duty
Officer Ct. Kallu about the accident. Thereafter, he along-with
public persons took the claimant in ERV car to AIIMS Trauma
Center and got him admitted there. PW5 categorically and
specifically deposed that the accident could have been avoided
had the driver of the offending vehicle been cautious and that
accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver. PW6 was cross-examined by Ld.
Counsel for insurance company, wherein he reaffirmed mode and
manner of the accident.
19. The FIR was registered on the same day. PW5 detailed the
accident including specifications of offending vehicle mentioning
the details of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was
also seized and taken into possession at the pointing out of PW6.
There is no dispute about the identification of the vehicle or the
driver thereof.
20. 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 PW5. 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.
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 8 of 54
21. R-3 has also filed legal offer and has not raised any dispute
in respect of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
being the cause of the accident.
22. The testimony of PW1 with respect to the circumstances of
the accident and the speedy and reckless driving of offending
vehicle has remained unshaken, uncontradicted and
uncontorverted and there is no reason to discredit the same.
23. 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}
24. 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
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 9 of 54
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 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.
.
.
.
25. "....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.
26. The assessment or grant of compensation is a small attempt to render assistance to the injured to navigate through the MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 10 of 54 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.
27. 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 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."
28. It is also settled that the monetary assessment is a methodology known to law as social and legal security to a MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 11 of 54 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 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"
29. 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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 12 of 54 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...."
30. 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 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."
31. 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).
32. 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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 13 of 54 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).
33. 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)}.
34. 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 v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197.
35. 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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 14 of 54 compensation the fundamental criterion of "just compensation"
should be inhered."
36. 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 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."
37. 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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 15 of 54 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 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
38. Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 16 of 54 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:
(i) Immediately after the accident, injured was admitted to AIIMS Trauma Center where he remained hospitalized since 13.07.2017 till 14.08.2017. Patient suffered severe head injury apart from several fractures in hips and knees. He remained under medical treatment for several years post accident as per the medical records. PW-1 /wife of injured has filed summary of medical bills for a total sum of Rs 2,96,476/- as Mark A whereas the original medical documents have been filed as Ex.PW1/A (colly) and medical bills as Ex.PW1/12 (colly). Considering the nature of injuries and prolonged treatment, sundry medical expenses cannot be ruled out. Accordingly claimant is awarded Rs.3,16,476/- (Rs 2,96,476/- (+) Rs. 20,000/-).
(B) Expenditure on Conveyance:
(i) PW-1/ wife of injured has filed Transportation Bills as Ex.PW1/14, summary of which has been placed on record as Mark A for an amount of Rs.96,700/-. It is evident that injured had to visit various hospitals for procedures, medical tests, for consultations, physiotherapy and for various other medical requirements for a prolonged period of time post accident.
Further, his family members would also have been required to MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 17 of 54 accompany him at all times during visits and stays in the hospital. An amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs is awarded to claimant towards conveyance expenditure.
(C) Expenditure on Special Diet:
(i) Claimant remained admitted in hospital for more than a month at a stretch post accident. PW-1 testified that even when he was discharged from AIIMS, he was unable to move on his own and was unable to speak for a long time and also lost his memory.
(ii) He was prescribed a detailed Ryles Tube Feed Advise with methodology as well as the feeding schedule, explaining the procedure of feeding along with maintenance and cleaning of the feeding devise. He was prescribed high protein supplements, corn starch, eggs, sugar, oil, milk, as a formula to be administered twice a day at two hour interval. 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 family members of the claimant would have incurred considerable expenses on special diet, prescribed and required by injured for efficient healing. Further, considering the nature of injury, the feeding module would have continued at least for several months post accident. Further, as mentioned in the subsequent OPD medical consultations prescriptions, oral soft/solid feeds were mentioned to be tried, if tolerable by the injured. Further nature of injury and prolonged treatment would have mandated intake of nutritious diet for early and efficient recovery. As such, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- is MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 18 of 54 awarded to claimant towards expenditure on special diet.
(D) Expenditure towards services of Attendant:
(i) PW-1 / wife of injured deposed that two attendants were required during day and night to carry out daily routine activities of injured, for feeding him and for suction of his phlegm since the date of accident till about May 2019 and subsequently, at least one attendant has been deployed till date to give him medicines, changing clothes and to maintain hygiene and for feeding him as the injured continued to remain bed ridden. She also testified that the injured could pass urine only through the urine pipe which was kept in place for about 2 years post accident and for passing stool, he required assistance of two persons to hold him. She also testified that a suction machine was purchased as suction pipe was put in place post accident and was removed in May 2018. It is evident that the victim underwent several procedures and despite prolonged treatment, he has been assessed with 82.7% permanent physical disability including 70% neurological disability and 57% neuro-psychological impairment. As per medical assessment, he would continue to need help and support to carry out basic routine tests including eating, changing, walking for the rest of his like. He was also advised regular care of tracheostomy tube and wheelchair mobility during treatment.
(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. MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 19 of 54 Veluswami 9 AIR 1962 SC 1 as refereed and relied in Kajal Vs. 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 incapacitated 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.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 20 of 54 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 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/, MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 21 of 54 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). In the present case, the claimant required the assistance of two attendants for a period of two years during the period of his continuous treatment as per the deposition of wife of injured. Considering the cost of a single attendant for a 12-hour at Rs.10,000 per month. As such, the total attendant charges for two attendants over the specified duration shall amount to Rs. 20,000/- x 24 (months) = Rs.4,80,000/-.
(vii) Further, there is no material on record to establish that the claimant will continue to require the assistance of two attendants in the future also. PW-1/ wife of injured also testified that services of one attendant is required for his daily needs and personal care till date. As per clinical evaluation, it was observed that injured can do mobility like standing, walking on plain surface and slope, climbing stairs, taking turn, squatting on floor, kneeling or sitting with assistance which itself infer that he need at least an attendant for his normal mobility in day to day life. In view of this, the cost of one attendant is awarded as part of future attendant charges for his well-being and rehabilitation. The MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 22 of 54 compensation under this head is calculated in accordance with the wages for single attendant at Rs. 10,000/- using the multiplier method. The age of injured in the present case is 44 years and as such applicable multiplier would be 14.
(viii) The future attendant charges is thus calculated to be :
Rs. 10,000/- x 12 x 14 = Rs. 16,80,000/-
(ix) Accordingly total sum of Rs.21,60,000/- (Rs.4,80,000/- + Rs.16,80,000/-) is awarded under the head of Attendant Charges.
(E) Loss of earning during the period of treatment:
(i) PW-1 / wife of injured testified that injured was employed as Head Constable with Delhi Police at the time of accident. PW-1 deposed that injured has never been able to report back to his duty post accident. She also stated that injured was constrained to continue to remain on leave due to the injuries sustained in the accident. PW-4 Ct. Ashish, Account Branch produced the salary records of injured as Ex.PW4/3 (colly) and stated that injured continued to receive salary till May 2021. PW-3 HC Manish Kumar appeared from Pension Cell of DCP Office, Sarita Vihar and produced attested Copy of Retirement Order dated 01.06.2021, placed on record as Ex.PW3/8 supported with other documents including attested copy of medical certificate Ex.PW3/7 (colly) vide which injured was invalidated from the service of Delhi Police on medical ground under Rule 38 (2) of CCS Pension Rule, 1972, at his own request. PW-2 ASI Ashok Kumar produced the record of leave break-up apart from the salary record as per which complete salary was paid to the injured since the date of accident till May 2021. It is also evident MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 23 of 54 that pension was payable to the injured since 02.06.2021.
Counsel for the claimant has sought loss of income only on the basis of the encashment of leaves availed for the purpose of treatment. As per leave break-up Ex.PW2/D, injured availed 330 EL against medical rest presumably upon production of medical certificate.
(ii) Payment against 330 days EL as per the break-up is shown in tabulated form:
Sl. Basic + DA Salary for one day Salary for specific No. Period and total days. period (basic + DA) /30 (salary for one day x total days) 1 10.11.2017 to 31.03.2018 (Rs.33,300/- + Rs. 1,166/- Rs.165572 (142 days) Rs.1,666/-) = Rs. 34,966/-
2 01.04.2018 to 05.09.2018 (Rs.33,300/- + Rs.1,188/- 1,87,704/-
(158 days) 2,331/-)
Rs.35,631/-
3 16.09.2018 to 30.09.2018 (Rs.33,300/- + Rs.1,210/- Rs.18,150/-
(15 days) Rs. 2,997/-) =
Rs.36,297/-
4 06.01.2019 to 20.01.2019 (Rs.35,300/- + Rs.1,283/- Rs.19,245/-
(15 days) Rs.3,177/-)=
Rs.38,477/-
TOTAL Rs.3,90,671/-
(iii) Injured also availed 92 days of Extra Ordinary Leave on medical ground w.e.f 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018 and 154 days of EOL on medical grounds w.e.f. 21.01.2019 to 23.06.2019. As per the salary record, injured had received salary for all this period and considering that the leave was taken on account of medical MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 24 of 54 incapacity, he shall not remain bereft of benefit of leave salary.
The encashment for which is produced in tabulated form:
Sl. Basic + DA Salary for one day Salary for specific No. Period and total days. period (basic + DA) /30 (salary for one day x total days) 1 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018 (Rs.33,300/- + Rs.1,210/- Rs.1,11,320/-
(92 days) Rs.2,997/-) =
Rs. 36,297/-
2 21.01.2019 to 31.03.2019 (Rs.35,300/- + Rs.1,283/- Rs.88,527/-
(69 days) 3,177/-)
Rs.38,477/-
3 01.04.2019 to 23.06.2019 (Rs.35,300/- + Rs.1,318/- Rs.1,10,712/-
(84 days) Rs.4,236/-)
Rs.39,536/-
TOTAL Rs.3,10,559/-
(iv) Apart from this, there are 135 commuted leaves on medical grounds which are in the nature of half pay leave and therefore half cash equivalent is being awarded for the leaves availed.
Sl. Basic + DA Salary for one day Salary for specific No. Period and total days. period (basic + DA) /30 (salary for one day x total days) /2 1 13.07.2017 to 09.11.2017 (Rs.33,300/- + Rs.1,166/- Rs.69,960/-
(120 days) Rs.1,665/-) =
Rs. 34,965/-
2 06.09.2018 to 15.09.2018 (Rs.33,300/- + Rs.1,210/- Rs.6,050/-
(10 days) 2,997/-)
Rs.36,297/-
3 January 2019 (5 days) (Rs.35,300/- + Rs.1,283/- Rs.3,207/-
Rs.3,177/-)
Rs.38,477/-
TOTAL Rs.79,217/-
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 25 of 54
(v) Total amount is calculated to be Rs.7,80,447/-
(Rs.3,90,671/- + Rs.3,10,559/- + Rs.79,217/-).
(vi) Since this amount is taxable, as per the applicable Tax Slab of the AY 2018-2019, following amount has been deducted towards Income Tax:
Rs.7,80,447/- (-) Rs.52,980/- =Rs.7,27,467/-
Accordingly, the loss of income comes out to be Rs.7,27,467/-
(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) Claimant was directed to be assessed for his disability vide order dated 10.12.2021. Disability Assessment Certificate was received in compliance whereby the total disability was worked out to be 82.6 %, permanent in nature with 70% neurological disability assessed by Medical Board of G. B. Pant Hospital and 57% neuro-psychiatric disability on the basis of Dysfunction Rating Score of 55, as evaluated by IHBAS.
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 26 of 54
(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 SC 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 earning capacity. The process entails understanding and MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 27 of 54 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.
(vi) Hon'ble SC laid down certain guidelines for the Tribunal MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 28 of 54 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.
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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 29 of 54 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 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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 30 of 54 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 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.
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 31 of 54 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 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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 32 of 54 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 equivalet 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 v. New India Assurance Co. 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 Supereme 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 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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 33 of 54 acknowleding 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) In the case at hand, injured was diagnosed with severe head injury with multiple contusions, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH), Cerebral Oedema coupled with pubic fracture and remained hospitalized for one month post accident with Apex Trauma Centre with loss of consciousness. He was put on ventilator support and underwent left frontal ICP Monitor Insertion to sense the pressure inside the skull and send measurements to a recording device. Injured was discharged on Ryles Tube feed and with Tracheostomy Tube and his Glasgow Coma Score was E4VTM2 which improved to E4VTM6 in the year 2018.
(xii) It is important to understand the parameters which define Glasgow Coma Score and what it implies for the patient concerned. As per the National Library of Medicine, an official Website of United State Governments, the Glasgow Coma Scale is used to objectively describe the extent of impaired consciousness in all types of acute medical and trauma patients. The scale makes an assessment of patients on 3 parameters of responsiveness: eye opening; verbal and motor responses.
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 34 of 54 Reporting each of these separately provide a clear and and communicable picture of a patient. The finding of each component of this scale can aggregate into a total Glasgow, score which can summarize the overall severity of any trauma patient. The Glasgow Coma Scale thus devides into 3 parameters:
1. Best eye response (E) with normal value of 4 and range from 1 to 4.
2. Best verbal response (V) with normal value of 5 and range from 1 to 5
3. Best Motor response (M) with normal value of 6 and range from 1 to 6.
(xiii) The total coma score thus has values between 3 and 15, 3 being the worst and 15 being the highest. As stated above, the score is the sum of score as well as in the visual elements.
(xiv) Assessment performa for upper extremity and lower extremity has been filed when injured was examined in January 2024 in G. B. Pant Institute which mentioned the range of movement of the patient. It noted that the patient cannot put on a Kurta, cant button, cannot tie pajama string, cannot write, cannot eat in Indian style, cannot drink glass of water, cannot lift, cannot touch nose with end of extremity while able to move his shoulder or elbow to some extent without any grasping ability with hands. It also noted that the injured can stand on both legs and walk on plain surface or on slope and can climb stairs with support. His Dysfunction Rating Score was evaluated as 55 as per PGI Battery for Brain Dysfunction Test for cognitive / neuor -psychological impairment based on memory attention, concentration, recalling MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 35 of 54 capacity, distingushing between similar and dissimilar pairs, visual retention, performance quotient, arithmetic and comprehensive and difference in verbal and performance quotient. It assessed the impression as " significant impairment with total dysfunction score of 55 indicating severe neuropsychological impairment with 57% disability ". The above detailed evaluation shows that the injured was rendered incapacitated for taking up any vocation or employment on account of physical as well as neuro-psychological impairment. In fact, this was also certified by the Medical Board of Doctors comprising of Sr.Members from the Department of Neurology, Department of Neuorosurgery and Incharge Disability Cell of GIPMER, GNCTD that the injured was completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the police department in consequence of "Road Traffic Accident causing head injury leading to severe neuro-psycological impairment" which inturn became the basis for admissibility of the case of injured for rendered invalidated from the service of Delhi Police on medical grounds on Rule 38 (2) of CCS Pension Rule 1972 at his own request. In the eventuality, it is evident that the injured would not be able to take up any work for gain and rather had to give up on his job because of the substantial physical as well as psychiatric disability. Injured is therefore, held to have suffered 100% functional disability, having lost all bodily capacity for any earning efficiency.
(xv) As per the salary record (Ex.PW1/13), income of injured was Rs. 49,581/- in the month of July, 2017, however, it remained stable or slightly decreased in remaining service years MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 36 of 54 presumably because he was not medically fit to do his job and remained absent so, the certain parameters and allowances in salary, which he was entitled to receive was not received by him. As the component of House Rent Allowance (HRA), Travel Allowance (TA), Conveyance Allowance (CA), Ration Money (RM) and Delhi Police Welfare Scheme Allowance (DPWs) were constant in the salary, not dependent upon the consumption, that all the these components have been taken to be included in the salary for the consumption by the injured as well as for the benefit of his family members. Accordingly, his monthly income is assessed to be Rs. 49,581/-.
(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) (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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 37 of 54 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 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".
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 38 of 54
(iii) PW-1 has filed his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/H on record as per which his date of birth is 02.06.1973, therefore, his age as on the date of accident was about 44 years. Since the injured was between age of 40 -50 years (at the time of accident) and was employed as government servant, thus as laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be @ 30 % upon application of category of ''permanent employee''.
(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 abovementioned 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 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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 39 of 54 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 14 (for age between 41 to 45 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. 49,581/- x 12) = Rs.5,94,972/-
Income Tax as per slab of AY 2018-2019 is being deducted.
Rs. 594972/- (-) Rs.31,494/- = Rs.5,63,478/-
Now the annual income for further calculation is therefore, taken to be Rs. 5,63,478/-
(b) Future prospect (30% of Rs. 5,63,478/-) = Rs. 1,69,043/-
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 40 of 54
(c) Total- (Rs. 5,63,478/- + Rs. 1,69,043/-) = Rs. 7,32,521/-
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs. 7,32,521/-
(e) Hence, the 'Total Loss of Future Income' shall be :-
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
100% (Rs. 7,32,521/-X 14) = Rs.1,02,55,294/-
(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. Injured has been hospitalized for recurrent seizures and also developed hydrocephalus (building of fluid in cavities called ventricles deep within the brain which increase its size and put pressure on the brain further damaging it) as post traumatic complications. 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 and frequent hospitalization 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:
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 41 of 54 "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 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 v. 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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 42 of 54 of complication which might arise, a lumpsum amount for meeting future potential medical expenses is granted to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
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 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.
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 43 of 54
(iii) In Common Cause, A Registered Society v. 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 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 v. 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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 44 of 54 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:
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 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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 45 of 54 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 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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 46 of 54 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 82.6 %, permanent in nature with 70% neurological disability assessed by Medical Board of G. B. Pant Hospital and 57% neuro-psychiatric disability on the basis of Dysfunction Rating Score of 55, as evaluated by IHBAS. It is evident that his every day basic routine activities are severely restricted. There is no sense of normalcy left in his life. He would totally dependent upon support from other person even for his daily activities. It is evident that the accident must have 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. 12,00,000/- 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.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 47 of 54 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 has suffered physical as well as neuro -psychological disability. What to talk of amenities of life, he is destined to be dependent even for basic routine activities on others. 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. An amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.
39. 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. 3,16,476/-
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 48 of 54
discussed above.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : As Rs. 1,50,000/-
discussed above.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : As Rs.3,00,000/-
discussed above.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.21,60,000/-
(v) Loss of income : Rs.7,27,467/-
(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.1,02,55,294/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Damages for pain, suffering and Rs. 12,00,000/-
trauma on account of injuries:
(ii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 2,00,000/-
(vi) Future medical expenses Rs. 10,00,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.1,63,09,237/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation after deduction Rs.1,63,09,237/-
Interest As directed
below
40. 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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 49 of 54 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 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."
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 50 of 54
41. 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.
LIABILITY
42. Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective Insurance Policy on the date of accident and has not raised any statutory defence. It has already been held that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. It is settled that Insurance Company is responsible to indemnify owner / insured for vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser. Therefore, such 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).
43. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of 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.
MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 51 of 54 MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
44. 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 Out of total settlement amount Rs. 1,40,00,000/- along with proportionate (to the principle amount) up to date interest is kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs. 50,000/- each. Remaining amount along with proportionate up to date interest shall be released in his bank account near his place of residence.
45. The following directions are also given to the bank for compliance:
(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 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 52 of 54 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 13.07.2017 2 Name of injured Pooran Chand Meena 3 Age of the injured 44 years 4 Occupation of the Govt Job.
injured MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 53 of 54 5 Income of the injured Rs. 45,728/-.
6 Nature injury Grievous injury and disability 7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization 9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury and disability disability?
46. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be also sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and Ld. Concerned Criminal Court. Digitally signed by SHELLY SHELLY ARORA Announced in the open court ARORA Date:
2025.03.28 on 28.03.2025 16:13:30 +0530 (Shelly Arora) PO (MACT)-02, South-East Distt.
Saket Courts, New Delhi 28.03.2025 MACT No.897/2017 Pooran Chand Meena Vs. Jamaluddin & Anr. Page No. 54 of 54