Delhi District Court
Prem Chand vs Karan Pal And Others on 11 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MAYURI SINGH
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
In the matter of :
CNR NO.: DLET01-000507-2021
MACP No.24/21
Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Ors.
Prem Chand
S/o- Late Sh. Sawalia
R/o- 03, Barhampuri @ Bhopura-1
Mandir Wali Near Durga Mandir,
District Ghaziabad, U.P.
.... Petitioner.
Versus
1. Karan Pal (Driver)
S/o Sh. Rajpal
R/o H. No.24, Tila Shahabazpur,
Loni Dehat, District Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Lokesh Sharma (Owner)
S/o Sh. Tek Ram Sharma
R/o Rishipal Sharma Tukki Singh
Ambedkar Colony, Loni Dehat,
District Ghaziabad, U.P.
Also at :
RZ-108, Sayed Nangloi, Pashchim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063.
3. M/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
Regional Office at Ist Floor, Core-1,
Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92. ...... Respondents.
Date of Institution : 14.01.2021
Date of Reserve of Order : Not reserved
Date of Judgment : 11.03.2025
MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 1 of 22
AWAR D
1. The present claim petition has been filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after Act) by the petitioner for claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident.
2. Facts narrated in the claim petition are that on 30.10.2020 the injured Prem Chand was coming to his home from DLF on foot and at about 5:30 pm, when he reached near Bhopura Chowk, suddenly a truck bearing registration No. UP-14JT-0092, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, hit the injured with great force and crushed his right lower limb. It is further mentioned that injured was taken to AIIMS Hospital by the son of the injured. In this connection, an FIR bearing No. 443/20 was registered at PS Teela Mod, U.P.
3. All the respondents put in their appearance and filed their replies/ written statements.
3(i) In his written statement filed by the Respondent No. 1, he stated that the petitioner has not come to Tribunal with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. It is mentioned that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of injured himself. It is further mentioned that he was holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. Rest of the averments of the DAR are denied.
3(ii). In his written statement filed by the Respondent No. 2, it is stated that vehicle of the respondent No.2 was not involved in the accident and respondent No.1 had not caused the accident. It is further mentioned that vehicle of the respondent No.2 was insured with Oriental Insurance. Co.
MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 2 of 22Ltd and respondent No.1 was having valid driving licence on the date of accident. Rest of the averments of the DAR are denied.
3(iii) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 / insurer, it is mentioned that the alleged accident had occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. Rest of the defence taken on behalf of R-3 are general.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 18.07.2022:-
(i) Whether the petitioner Prem Chand suffered grievous injuries in a motor vehicular accident happened on 30.10.2020 at about 05:30 p.m., T point Bhopura, near Chowki Tulsi Niketan, Ghaziabad, U.P., within jurisdiction of PS Teelamor, due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. UP-14JT-0092 being driven by respondent no.1/ Karan Pal? (OPP).
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of said injuries and if yes, to what amount and from whom? (OPP).
(iii) Relief.
5. In order to prove the present case, petitioner examined four witnesses.
5(i). PW1 is Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sati, Sr. Specialist, Department of Neurosurgery, GTB Hospital, Delhi and he proved the disability certificate Ex.PW1/1. He deposed that from neurological evaluation, no disability was found of the patient Prem Chand.
5(ii). PW2 is Dr. Sharad Chaudhari, Sr. Resident, Orthopedics, GTB Hospital, Delhi who also proved the disability certificate Ex.PW1/1.
MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 3 of 225(iii). PW3 is Sh. Anshul Sengar, Prothestist & Orthotist, Ottobock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd has proved the estimate of artificial limb, which is Ex.PW3/1.
5(iv). Petitioner / Prem Chand examined himself as PW4 and deposed on the strength of affidavit Ex. PW4/A and deposed regarding manner of accident, injuries suffered by him and the medical expenses incurred on his treatment and relied upon the following documents:-
• Copy of aadhar card of petitioner is Ex.PW4/1.
• Certified copy of criminal case record is Ex.PW4/2
• Original treatment record and medical bills of the petitioner
are Ex.PW4/3
Witnesses No. 2 to 4 were cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 3 / insurer and PW3 and4 were cross-examined also by Ld. Counsel for R1 & R2.
6. Respondent No.3/Insurer examined one witness in its support. R3W1 Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma, Junior Clerk, ARTO Ghaziabad produced the extract of driving licence of R1 Ex.R3W1/1 and authority letter Ex.R3W1/2. He deposed that the DL was issued on 29.05.2013 and was endorsed for transport on 26.08.2014 and was valid upto 25.08.2017 and subsequently endorsed for transport vehicle and lastly was endorsed on 11.01.2021 and valid upto 10.01.2026. He also deposed that during Corona pandemic, licence holders were given concession and exemption from renewal of the licence for the period 05.10.2020 to 10.01.2021 and licence holders could drive under the old licence during this period.
MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 4 of 227. I have heard Mohd. Rafi, Ld. Counsel for petitioner, Sh. Abhishek Sharma and Sh. Saral Sharma, Ld. Counsels for R-1 and R-2 and Ms. Sheela Aswani, Ld. Counsel for R-3 / Insurer. Record has been perused.
8. The issues are decided as follows:-
ISSUE No.1:
9. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of probabilities.
10. In order to prove his case, the petitioner himself stepped into witness box as PW1. He deposed that on 30.10.2020 at about 5:30 pm, he was coming home from DLF on foot at 5:30 pm and reached near Bhopura Chowk, suddenly the offending truck bearing No. UP-14JT-0092, came being driven in a high speed and vehicle hit him with great force, crushing his right lower limb. He was taken to AIIMS Hospital by his son and got discharged from there on 18.11.2020. He remained consistent in his cross- examination. He deposed that he was crossing the road and was alone at the time of accident. He deposed that he was not under influence of alcohol at the time of accident. He also deposed that there was no traffic light at the spot of accident and he was standing at turning point near cut at the time of accident. He denied that the accident was caused due to his negligence. Nothing fruitful could be extracted in his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2 to establish any negligence on the part of the injured. In MLC of the injured, against the column No. 4 of alcohol, the words 'A) MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 5 of 22 Breath Alcohol' is specified. However, these words do not make it clear whether the injured was subjected to breath alcohol test and found positive.
11. Further, it is not disputed that respondent No.1/driver Karan Pal was charge-sheeted in the aforesaid criminal case for causing the accident by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, prima-facie, it is clear that respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident.
12. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against respondent no. 1 the driver of the truck. Filing of charge-sheet against the driver of offending vehicle prima-facie points to his culpability. (New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Washeema Bano (2022) SCC OnLine All 403 and Mangla Ram vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (2018) 5SCC
656).
13. In New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Pazhaniammal (2011) (2) KLT 648, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held that as a general rule, it can be accepted that production of charge-sheet is prima-facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of claim under section 166 MV Act. If any party does not accept such charge-sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce evidence. If the Tribunal feels that charge- sheet is collusive, it can record that charge-sheet cannot be accepted and call upon the parties at any stage to adduce oral evidence of accident and alleged negligence. In such cases, issue of negligence must be decided on other evidence ignoring the charge-sheet.
14. Respondent Nos.1 & 2, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not examine any witness in defence.
MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 6 of 2215. MLC of the petitioner is filed alongwith DAR and proved on record and suggests that he was taken to the AIIMS Hospital on the date of accident with alleged history of road traffic accident on the same day and final opinion on the MLC was kept pending. However, under the column visible injuries, it was specified that crush injuries over right lower limb below knee was present. Charge-sheet was filed for offence u/s 279/ 338 IPC. Disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered from above knee amputation,which is sufficient to conclude that he sustained grievous injuries. There is no dispute raised by the respondents regarding the nature of injuries either.
16. In view of above, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities of evidence and for filing of charge-sheet, it is proved that the petitioner Prem Chand received grievous injuries due to rash and negligent act of respondent no.1 Karan Pal, the driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE No. 217. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance.
18. The case of Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Another (2011) 1 SCC 343, is one of the most prominent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which deals with compensation in injuries cases. It was held in this case that in routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 7 of 22 only under the heads-(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured , comprising (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment and (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation is also to be done under the head of loss of future earnings which would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured. The tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability, as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of percentage of the income. It has to be quantified in terms of money to arrive at the future loss of earnings by applying standard multiplier method. All injuries or permanent disabilities arising from injuries do not result in loss of earning capacity. If there is no loss of employment or earning capacity, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities consequent to his injuries.
19. Therefore, on the basis of the injuries to the petitioner, the compensation is awarded to her under the afore-said heads as follows :-
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
20. Perusal of medical document Ex. PW4/3 reflect that petitioner spent over Rs.15,935/- on his medical treatment. All the bill are not in MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 8 of 22 original but in order and no serious dispute to the bills has been raised. Therefore, a sum of Rs.15,935/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING:
21. Petitioner has deposed that after the accident, he was taken to AIIMS where he remained admitted for about 19 days and he suffered from amputation of his right lower limb below knee. Further, it has also come on record that petitioner suffered 80% permanent disability in relation to right lower limb and above knee amputation was also done and disability certificate Ex.PW1/1 was also issued to this effect. In view of this, it is clear the petitioner must have remained under immense pain and suffering for a long time during his treatment and even after his treatment, he would not be able to use his right leg properly on account of permanent disability and for entire life, he will have to depend on artificial limb. In Ankur Kapoor through GPA Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd; Civil Appeal No. 17998 of 2017, decided on 06.11.2017, Hon'ble Apex Court granted additional Rs.3,00,000/¬ towards pain, agony and trauma, in a case where claimant suffered 50% disability in relation to his right arm. In the present case, petitioner has suffered above knee amputation of left leg which led to permanent disability of 80%. Keeping in view the seriousness of nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner in the accident, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is granted to the petitioner towards pain and suffering.
LOSS OF INCOME (DURING TREATMENT):
22. Petitioner has mentioned in the claim petition that he was doing private work in Delhi and earning Rs 18,000/- per month. It is further mentioned that he was working with a contractor in Delhi. It is to be kept in MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 9 of 22 mind that age of the petitioner at the time of accident was 68 years (as per discharge summary of AIIMS Hospital and 66 years, as per Aadhar Card and PAN Card). In his evidence by way of affidavit, petitioner deposed that he was working in Delhi and earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. While according to the claim petition, petitioner was working with a private contractor, in his cross-examination, he changed his version and deposed that "I was working as a private contractor in Delhi". It is further seen that while in the claim petition and examination-in-chief of the petitioner by way of affidavit, he has mentioned his monthly income as Rs.18,000/- per month, in his cross-examination, he mentioned that he was earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. Apart from the bald oral assertion of the petitioner, there is nothing brought on record to suggest that he was working and earning at the time of accident, despite being of the advance age of 66-68 years. He deposed that he is not an income tax assessee and his income was not regular. In view of the material contradictions in his testimony, it is clear that he has not disclosed true facts before the Tribunal and has not come to Court with clean hands. The only conclusion that can be drawn by the Tribunal is that he was not working at the time of accident. It is further relevant to mention that petitioner has not filed any document in proof of his age and the only documents in proof of identity are Aadhar Card and PAN Card, which shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 25.12.1953. Aadhar Card and PAN Card cannot be treated as definitive proof of age. In "Saroj Vs. IFFCO TOKIO GIC" decided on 24.10.2024, D.B. of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the office memorandum dated 02.12.2018 issued by MeitY through UIDAI, where it was stated that Aadhar Card can be used for establishing identity of an individual but per se is not a proof of a date of birth and observed that use of Aadhar cannot be a definitive proof of date of birth. The date of preparation of these MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 10 of 22 documents is also not known and it is a common practice, especially in claim cases, to get prepared fresh Aadhar Card and PAN Card or get it updated for the purpose of compliance and requirement in a Motor Accident Claim and it is not unusual for showing the age on lower side in such an Aadhar Card. In any case, even when Aadhar Card and PAN Card are taken in proof of age of the injured, he was well above 66 years old on the date of accident. Hence, as injured was non-working and there is no claim regarding any notional income on account of any contribution to the family either, no compensation for loss of income is to be granted to the petitioner.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY :
23. Petitioner was about 66 years, 10 months and 05 days of age at the time of accident as per his Aadhar Card Ex.PW4/A. He is an old man, post the age of retirement and has miserably failed to even ex-facie show that he was earning at that age. It is clear that he was non-earning on the date of accident and an elderly gentleman. He has not disclosed anything to suggest what was his job and occupation at any point of time, when he was young and working. There is an age of retirement provided by the government for those serving the government in jobs provided by State.
While a person may choose to work post retirement as well, there can be no assumption or presumption regarding his work and income at the fag end of his life, particularly beyond the average life expectancy and concrete evidence, in my considered view, should be led in this regard. Petitioner was not working or contributing to the income of his family. He was of such an age even at the time of his accident, he can very well be considered as dependent on his children for his lookafter under law and in case of neglect, could even take recourse to Senior Citizen Act. Petitioner has not MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 11 of 22 disclosed any thing regarding his family structure and financial condition. There is nothing in the documents filed on record to reflect on the same.
24. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Case titled as Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Trasnport Corporation and Others, CIVIL APPEAL NO 3483 OF 2008, (Arising out of SLP [C] No.8648 of 2007) held that :
"19. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie [2005 (10) SCC 720], this Court noticed that in respect of claims under section 166 of the MV Act, the highest multiplier applicable was 18 and that the said multiplier should be applied to the age group of 21 to 25 years (commencement of normal productive years) and the lowest multiplier would be in respect of persons in the age group of 60 to 70 years (normal retiring age). This was reiterated in TN State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajapriya [2005 (6) SCC 236] and UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Bala [2006 (6) SCC 249]....
20. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas (set out in column 2 of the table above);
some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra, (set out in column 3 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in column (4) of the Table above); many follow the multiplier given in second column of the Table in the Second Schedule of MV Act (extracted in column 5 of the table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the table above). For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in column (2) of the Second schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the second Schedule to MV Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under section 166 and not under section 163A of MV Act. In cases falling under section 166 of the MV Act, Davies method is applicable.
MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 12 of 2221. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
25. The above-stated judgment was in context of a fatal injury case but the multiplier applied therein can be conveniently used in cases of injury in appropriate cases to calculate future loss of income by applying suitable multiplier. In the case at hand, petitioner was at least 66 years old and it is generally considered harsh for a man or woman of such an age to be expected to make both ends meet through their sweat and labour or even to prove why he/she is not working. Physical and mental faculties of a human are expected to diminish with age and irrespective of how fit a person may be at the end of his professional career, there is an age of retirement provided. A person in job gracefully retires and goes about pursuing his hobbies or just relaxes in his second innings. He may choose to work too but once retirement and post-retirement assignment ends, his pensionary benefits/retirement, as applicable, remain intact. This is because, at the end of a professional career, lifelong efforts are rewarded and future security may be provided to a government servant, or a private working professional, a poor elderly woman et al, as the case may be applicable, irrespective of whether he is active and earning through various means, including his own physical or mental labour at that age. This is because, government recognizes that there is an age at which mental and physical faculties diminish or are about to deteriorate. In the case at hand, injured Sh. Prem Chand was at least about 66 years old at the time of MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 13 of 22 accident and is presently more than 71 years old. He is a non-working individual. Till date, nothing has been filed on record to suggest that he has taken up any job or work till date. He claims future benefits and loss of earning on the basis of minimum wages, equating himself with a working person of the same age. He is completely mum whether he is in receipt of any old age or other pension. Status of his wife is not known either. There is nothing brought on record to suggest that he has any dependent. A man or woman who is actually earning, has a social life and contribution to society beyond the age of 65, can not be equated with a human his age, who is leading a retired life. A senior citizen, who is non-working and whose children are no longer his responsibility, cannot lay such claim to assisting the household and liquidating his contribution in terms of money. Petitioner has not disclosed what work he was doing for the family, which he took upon himself as a father and family member, which was compromised due to injuries suffered by him. His children and grand children are not his responsibility to raise and tend to and there is no such claim made either. There is no evidence led to show that any of his children was invalid and dependent on him for any support. Age, occupation and number of grand-children and children is not proved on record. Hence, considering the age of Petitioner and him being well being post-retirement age and also considering that there is no evidence to show that he was working at that age and had no support from his family, I am of the considered view that he is not entitled to any claim towards loss of income as there was none.
26. Issue of future prospect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 14 of 22"(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
27. The petitioner was not working and has failed to establish any possibility of future loss of income either. In my considered view, in absence of proof regarding the capacity to earn, no notional income can be assumed either. In view of the above said judgment, the injured who was 66 years of age and not working, is not entitled for benefit of future prospects either.
CONVEYANCE, ATTENDANT & SPECIAL DIET CHARGES:
28. Though no evidence has come on record to prove the expenses incurred by the petitioner on the conveyance, however, considering that the petitioner remained hospitalized for long period and was under treatment over a considerable period of time, an inference can be drawn that substantial amount must have been incurred by the family members of petitioner over conveyance and further considering nature of injuries and MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 15 of 22 the age of the petitioner, special diet must have been required for her recovery. Thus, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance and Rs.20,000/- towards special diet.
29. Further, it cannot be ignored that family members of the petitioner must had to render their services for providing assistance to the petitioner in his routine activities and that was bound to suffer their work / job. For claiming compensation, necessity of employing a professional attendant / care taker is not required and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the family members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver. (Refer :
DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). In view of above, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to petitioner as attendant charges.
30. Thus, a total sum of Rs.50,000/- (10,000+20,000+20,000) is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
ARTIFICIAL LIMB:-
31. Learned Counsel for petitioner has argued that petitioner has suffered amputation of left lower limb above knee due to injuries suffered by him in the road accident and he will require assistance of an artificial limb for the rest of his life. In this regard, petitioner also examined Sh.
Anshul Sengar/PW3, Prosthetist & Orthotist, Otto Bock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd, 19, South Patel Nagar, Near Patel Nagar Metro Station, opposite pillar no. 194, New Delhi to prove the cost of artificial limb. The said witness testified that estimated cost of the artificial limb for petitioner is Rs.5,83,275/-. (Estimate bill is Ex PW3/1).He also deposed that the after sales service and maintenance cost is roughly around Rs.25,000/- t0 MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 16 of 22 30,000/- per annum. He also deposed that the life of artificial limb is about 5-6 years on average use.PW3 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company and Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2. He deposed in his cross-examination that he does not have any idea about the price of artificial limb available in the market and further that there is likelihood of the increase in price by 6% to 8% annually but there is no fixed rule or formula. He also deposed that the range of quotation varies from Rs.1.5 lakhs to 78 lakhs. PW3/Anshul Singhal failed to satisfactorily answer regarding the absolute requirement of the limb in question as per the quotation provided. He was not the concerned person who examined the petitioner at the time of issuance of quotation Ex.PW3/A. There is nothing to suggest that he was the concerned person, who examined the petitioner at the time of issuance of the quotation. He deposed that with the prosthesis as per quotation Ex.PW3/A, petitioner could resume his regular activities, with or without support, both in controlled and uncontrolled environment. He also deposed that with the kind of prosthesis in the estimated price 1.5 lakhs, patient is advised to do limited activities in a controlled environment. However, he failed to disclose what was the specification, quality, functionality and safely features of the prosthesis for above knee amputation, just above the prosthesis in the estimated price of 1.5 lakhs. Further, no document was produced to show that the petitioner was assessed by the company and what parameters were used for the recommendation of the given prosthesis quotation by the company to the petitioner and further what was the requirement of the petitioner as per the assessment and the opinion of the expert. It is relevant here to note that petitioner has failed to establish even ex facie through any bank statement, testimony of any contractor etc., his claim regarding being employed and working. There is absolutely nothing brought on record to suggest that MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 17 of 22 petitioner was interviewed by the company and analysis of his need and requirement was done by the company, prior to issuance of the quotation Ex.PW3/1. In my considered view, quotation Ex.PW3/1 is quite inflated and PW3 failed to justify why the prosthesis under quotation Ex.PW3/1 was recommended for the petitioner. Admittedly, the above knee amputation prosthesis price range starts from Rs. 1.5 lakhs, as provided by the company of PW3. PW3 deposed that the starting range of prosthesis was meant for limited activities in a controlled environment. Hence, the compensation under this head is being calculated, assuming the price of the prosthesis requirement to be Rs.2.5 lakhs per prosthesis and further assuming that consumables required for the same as well as the maintenance charges would be in the range of Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/- per year. Further, it can be assumed that the life of the prosthesis would be at least 05 to 07 years. Considering the present age of the petitioner, it is assumed that if the life span of prosthesis is about 05 to 07 years, he may require about 03 replacements. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that so far, he has not purchased any artificial limb and as per his medical documents, he is about 72 years old presently. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (2,50,000 x 3 + 25,000 x 18 ) under this head keeping in mind that during his life time he may require three sets of artificial limbs as he was 68 years of age at the time of his accident and presently he is about 72 years old. However, the said amount shall not be released directly to the petitioner and same shall be kept in form of a separate FDR and shall be disbursed directly to the Hospital/Agency from where the artificial limb is sought to be purchased/ replaced. The amount in the FDR is to be released only upon showing the medical advise / purchase bills / treatment documents for the purpose of seeking withdrawal of the amount put in FDR in compliance of judgment MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 18 of 22 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Neha & Ors. MAC App No. 600/12, dated 08.03.2016.
32. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.15,935/-
2. Pain & Suffering Rs.4,00,000/-
Loss of income (during Nil
3. treatment and in future due to
permanent disability)
Conveyance, Attendant and Rs.50,000/-
4. Special Diet expenses
Loss of future income on Nil
5. account of permanent
disability
6. Artificial Limb Rs.12,00,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 16,65,935/-
(Rounded off to
Rs.16,66,000/-)
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.16,66,000/-. The amount of Interim Compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/- as awarded on 18.07.2022 shall be deducted from this amount.
LIABILITY
33. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents are liable to pay the compensation amount. Insurance company has taken up the general plea in the written statement that if the offending vehicle was being driven without valid permit, fitness and DL of the driver, the insurance company shall not be liable to pay any compensation to the MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 19 of 22 petitioner. R-3 examined one witness in defence. He deposed that R-1 had a valid driving licence for LMV and MCWG and the licence was issued initially on 29.05.2013 and further endorsed for transport vehicle on 05.10.2017 and was valid upto 04.10.2020 for transport vehicle and lastly the same was endorsed on 11.01.2021 to 10.01.2026. He deposed that driving licence was not valid from 05.10.2020 to 10.01.2021 as per the record of RTO Ghaizabad. A Tribunal question was put to this witness and he was asked whether any driving licence was issued or renewed during the period from 05.10.2020 to 10.01.2021 and whether on account of corona pandemic, any concession or exemption for renewal of licence had been given by any appropriate authority. He deposed that the Ghaziabad authority had issued and renewed the licence of the person during the said period but, to the best of his knowledge, on account of corona, licence holder were given concession and exemption for renewal of the licence for the above-stated period and in case, they could not get the driving licence renewed or learner's licences deposited, the licence were renewed after the said period without any late fees. He further deposed that "Between the period of February 2020 to 30.09.2021, licence holders were exempted from renewal of the expired licence and during this period, they could drive the vehicle under the old licence terms under the notifications issued by Central Government". He denied that licence holders were never exempted from renewal of expired licence for any period and also denied that no licence holder could drive any vehicle under expired licence for the period February 2020 to 30.09.2021. Ld. Counsel for petitioner filed on record copy of the notification bearing No. RT-11036/35/2020-MVL Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. It shows that advisories were issued by the Ministry to all States and UTs for extension of validity of documents related to MV Act and CMVR for MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 20 of 22 treating the documents like fitness permit, DL, RC etc. to be valid in case expired and whose validity could not be extended due to lockdown for period between 01.02.2020 to 30.09.2021. From the testimony of R3W1 as well as Central Government Notification (copy filed on record by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner), it can be seen that the driving licence of driver Karan Pal could not be renewed during the corona pandemic for the short period of 05.10.2020 to 10.01.2021. It is not disputed that he was an expert driver and having a transport driving licence which was duly renewed / endorsed for transport after expiration on 05.10.2020, vide endorsement dated 11.01.2021. Hence, he can be treated to be having a valid driving licence on the date of accident. As insurance company has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured and, in this case, insurance company has not been able to prove that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/ violated by insured, therefore, respondent no.3/ insurance company becomes liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount.
INTEREST
34. The petitioner has conducted the proceedings in this case since year 2021. Therefore, he is entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum on the aforesaid award amount from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization.
ISSUE No.3/RELIEF:
35. In view of the findings on said issues, this Tribunal awards a total compensation of Rs.16,41,000/-(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Forty Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition till the date of its realization, in favour of petitioner and MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 21 of 22 against the Respondents No. 1 & 2 and same is required to be deposited with this Tribunal within 30 days by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
Digitally signed by MAYURI MAYURI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.11 16:01:17 +0530 Announced in the open (Mayuri Singh) Court on 11. 03.2025 Presiding Officer-MACT (East) (Total 22 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi MACP No. 24/21 Prem Chand Vs. Karan Pal & Anr. Page 22 of 22