Delhi District Court
Krishan Kumar vs Sunil Kumar Yadav & Ors. on 19 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI, PO :
MACT-01 (SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. 11/2017
Krishan Kumar Vs Sunil Kumar Yadav & Ors.
CNR No.-DLSW010001092017
Krishan Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Prakash Yadav
R/o VPO Niyuri, PS Barol Distt.
Darbanga, Bihar
Presently residing at :
H.No. A-196, Gali no. 3, Surya Vihar,
Pocket-4, Police Chowki,
Gurugram, Haryana.
Mobile no. Not provided.
PAN :AJMPY5791J ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sh. Sunil Kumar Yadav ( Driver)
S/o Kishan Yadav
R/o Village: Haripur, P.S. Koilwar
Bhojpur, Bihar.
Mobile no. 9867490114
2. Excellent Structures Pvt. Ltd (Owner)
Sh. Abid Ali (through AR)
A-31, Lane no. 1,
Abdul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
Mobile no. 9999051555, 9268562661,
011-26983550
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Nodal Officer : Mr. Roshan Kumar Thakur
Mobile no. 8448290321
email : [email protected]
... Respondents
MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 1 of 20
Date of institution of the case- 07.01.2017
Date on which, judgment have been reserved-23.02.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment- 19.04.2022
FORM -V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED
IN THE AWARD
1 Date of the accident 18.11.2016
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal (
Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the 07.01.2017
Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company
(Clause 2)
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. PC Not clear from record
before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 07.01.2017
Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 07.01.2017
Company. (Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 07.01.2017
(Clause 11)
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed No
later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action / direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by 07.01.2017
the Insurance company ( Clause 20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the Shri Sumit Johar, GM-
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company ( claims
Clause 20 )
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Not clear from record.
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 2 of 20
the DAR? ( Clause 22 )
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the Legal Offer was filed.
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of
the Insurance Company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law ( Clause 23 )
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any action / directions
warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of Not clear from record
the Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award 19.04.2022
19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of No.
the parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open
savings bank accounts (s) near their place of Yes
residence ? ( Clause 18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 18.04.2018
to open savings bank accounts(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card
and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque
book/debit card to the claimants (s) and make an
endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s)
(Clause 18 )
22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 18.11.2020
passbook of their savings bank account near the
place of their residence alongwith the endorsement,
PAN Card and Adhaar Card? (Clause 18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) VPO Niyuri, PS Barol
(Clause 27 ) Distt. Darbanga, Bihar
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the SB A/C no.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC 18462122001617 at
Code( Clause 27) Oriental Bank of
Commerce, Gurugram,
Haryana (IFSC Code:
ORBC0101846)
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is Yes
near his place of residence ? (Clause 27)
26 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time Yes
MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 3 of 20
of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, Account No. 37665510911
name and branch of the bank of the Claims at SBI, District Court
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be Complex, Sector-10,
deposited/transferred. Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC
Code SBIN0011566 and
MICR Code 110002483)
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment, the Tribunal shall dispose off the present DAR for grant of compensation qua the injuries sustained by Krishan Kumar in road traffic accident filed against respondents- Sunil Kumar Yadav & Ors.
2. CLAIM a. Brief facts as made out from the above-said DAR are that on 18.11.2016, petitioner being a driver by profession having a commercial license went to drop the passenger at Nangloi, by his Etios Car bearing no. DL 1YE 0612. Thereafter, at about 01.30 am at night, while he was coming back to Gurugram when he reached to the signal light of Sector-10 & Sector-19, Dwarka near Welcome Hotel then, dumper bearing no. DL1GC 2639 which was overloaded came from the right side of the petitioner at high speed and hit the car of the petitioner. Due to the collision, the air bag of the car of the petitioner got opened and the car over turned three four times and petitioner sustained grievous injuries whereas the car of the petitioner was damaged completely due to the accident. b. It is stated that after the accident, petitioner/injured was taken to DDU Hospital where his MLC bearing no. 11542 dated 18.11.2016 was prepared by the doctor. It is further stated that petitioner sustained steering wheel impact on abdomen and on examination by doctors a distended and tender abdomen which was diagnosed to have perforative peritonitis for which the petitioner underwent exploratory MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 4 of 20 laparotomy with ileal perforation repair on 18.11.2016. Further, after discharge from DDU hospital, petitioner got himself admitted at Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital on 20.11.2016 and got discharged on 24.11.2016.
c. It is also stated that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 and a case in this regard was registered vide FIR No. 354/216 u/s 279/338 IPC at PS Dwarka, Sector-23, New Delhi. d. It has been stated that at the time of accident, petitioner/injured Krishan Kumar was self employed and used to earn more than ₹70,000/- per month by driving his vehicle through Ola/Uber. Further, due to the accident, petitioner was advised bed rest for 3 months and hence, he could not work.
3. DEFENCES a. No reply has been filed on behalf of R1 & R2 i.e. Driver Sunil Kr Yadav and on behalf of Excellent Structures Pvt. Ltd. in the present case. b. WS and Written Submissions were filed on behalf of R3 / IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd wherein, R3 denied liability on the following grounds:-
• Petitioner failed to prove his alleged employment with Uber Technology by leading evidence from the concerned employer to corroborate the same. • Petitioner has not proved medical treatment bills by leading testimony of the concerned medical practitioner and pharmacist as per law. • Further no bills supporting expenditure on conveyance, special diet or attendant charges has been placed on record by the petitioner. • No permanent disability has been suffered by the petitioner as evident from the records post alleged accident.
• Income of the petitioner remains unproved as no ITR or employer's evidence has been filed to prove his income.
• Further, in case any award alongwith interest is awarded, the rate of interest should not be more than 5% per annum which is now a days being granted by the banks on deposits etc for one year under guidelines of RBI.
MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 5 of 20 c. Legal offer has been filed on behalf of R-3, wherein the said insurance company has given an offer of ₹30,000/-to the injured. However, the offer was not acceptable to the claimant.
4. In the present case, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 14.12.2017 by Ld. Predecessor of the Court:
ISSUES :
1. Whether Krishan Kumar sustained grievous injuriesin a motor vehicle accident dated 18.11.2016 due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-1GC-2639 being driven by respondent no. 1 Sunil Kumar Yadav, owned by respondent no. 2 Excellent Structures Pvt Ltd. and insured by respondent no. 3 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd.? ...OPP
2. Whether the petitioner in the above mentioned cases is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
3. Relief.
5. PETITIONER EVIDENCE In support of their case, petitioners have examined:
a. Petitioner Krishan Kumar as PW-1 who has relied upon documents as Ex. PW1/1 & Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/7.
b. Thereafter, PE was closed on behalf of petitioners.
6. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE No RE was lead on behalf of respondents despite opportunity. Thereafter, RE was closed.
7. Arguments have been heard. Material on record perused. Submissions considered.
It is pertinent to mention here that arguments have not been addressed in both the cases on behalf of R-1 Sunil Kr Yadav (driver) and R-2 Excellent MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 6 of 20 Securities Pvt Ltd. (owner of offending vehicle), despite opportunity being given.
8. The issue-wise findings are as under :
9. ISSUE No. 1Whether Krishan Kumar sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 18.11.2016 due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-1GC-2639 being driven by respondent no. 1 Sunil Kumar Yadav, owned by respondent no. 2 Excellent Structures Pvt Ltd. and insured by respondent no. 3 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.? ...OPP a. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner/ injured and in order to discharge the said onus, petitioner/injured- Krishan Kumar has examined himself as PW-1 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW-1/A), wherein it has been stated that on 18.11.2016 at about 01.30 am at night, while he was coming back to Gurugram when he reached to the signal light of Sector-10 & Sector-19, Dwarka near Welcome Hotel then, dumper bearing no. DL14C 2639 which was overloaded came from the right side of the petitioner at a high speed and hit the car of the petitioner. Due to the high collision the air bag of the car of the petitioner got opened and the car over turned three four times and petitioner sustained grievous injuries whereas the car of the petitioner was damaged completely due to the accident.
b. It is further stated that after the accident, he was immediately removed to DDU Hospital, where his MLC bearing no. 11542 dated 18.11.2016 was prepared by the doctor. Thereafter, he got himself admitted at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Pusa Road, Delhi where he remain admitted from 20.11.2016 to 24.11.2016. It is also stated that driver of the offending dumper was most rash, reckless and negligent in driving the offending vehicle and he was solely and entirely responsible for the accident. PW1 further relied upon documents i.e. Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/7 in support of his version.
MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 7 of 20 c. The important fact is that this witness i.e. PW-1 (petitioner/ injured) was cross examined on behalf of respondents, but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of this witness. In his cross examination, the injured stated that he does not know the registration number of the vehicle. However, he could tell about its description. Even otherwise, neither R1 and R2 filed reply nor did they cross examine the witness to deny the accident. In these circumstances, the version of the injured is the only version on record regarding the manner in which the accident took place. It is noteworthy that in his affidavit, the witness has mentioned the vehicle number as DL-14C-2639. However, the same appears to be a clerical error on account of similarity between the number 4 and letter G. d. In these circumstances, nothing material has come on record which could shake the credibility of this witness qua his deposition regarding the manner in which the accident was caused in this case.
e. Hence, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that petitioner/ injured- Krishan Kumar sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. DL1GC 2639 which was being driven by R-1 Sunil Kr Yadav, owned by R-2 Excellent Structures Pvt. Ltd. and insured with R-3 / IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd at the time of accident. f. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner/ injured and against the respondents.10. ISSUE No. 2
Whether the petitioner in the above mentioned case is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP a. The onus to prove the above-said issue no. 2 was upon the petitioner/injured Krishan Kumar and in order to discharge the said onus, the MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 8 of 20 petitioner/ injured Krishan Kumar has examined himself as PW-1 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW-1/A), wherein it has been stated that on 18.11.2016, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of R-1/driver of offending vehicle bearing DL 1GC 2639. PW-1 has also relied upon the documents i.e. copy of DL as Ex. PW-1/1, Copy of MLC as Ex. PW1/3, Discharge Summary of Sri Ganga Ram Hospital as Ex. PW1/4, Medical Bills as Ex. PW1/5, Copy of Insurance cum Policy Schedule is Ex. PW1/6 and Copy of Bank Passbook reflecting the income of the dependent for the last six months from the date of accident as Ex.
PW1/7.
b. In his cross examination by Ld counsel for R-3/ insurance company, PW-1 denied the suggestion that the medical bills qua his treatment are false and fabricated and further deposed that he was not having any medi-claim policy at the time of accident and that he did not file any ITR.
c. In his affidavit, PW-1 deposed that he remained admitted in the hospital for about 5 days after the accident and further in his statement regarding needs and liabilities, petitioner has stated that he has spent ₹1,00,000/- on his treatment after taking loan from his friends and relatives.
d. Further, PW-1 deposed that at the time of accident, by profession he is working as driver and having commercial licence Ex. PW1/1 alongwith Badge to run the commercial vehicles.
e. Hence in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence on record, it is clear that petitioner/ injured- Krishan Kumar sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident dated 18.11.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. DL 1G C 2639, which was being driven by R-1 Sunil Kr Yadav and owned by R-2 Excellent Structure Pvt Ltd. and insured by R-3 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company at the time of accident and as such, the petitioner/ injured - Krishan Kumar has become entitled to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the above-said accident.
MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 9 of 20 f. Accordingly, quantum of compensation payable to petitioner / injured Krishan Kumar is ascertained under the following heads:
11. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES a. In the present case, as per MLC bearing no. 11542 dated 18.11.2016 on record, the petitioner/injured - Krishan Kumar has suffered grievous injuries due to the accident in this case.
b. Nature of injuries:
As per discharge summary of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, petitioner/ injured Krishan Kumar is diagnosed as perforative peritonitis i.e. Blunt Trauma Abdomen with ileal perforation status emploratory laparotomy with ileal perforation repair.
c. Treatment :
From the discharge summary of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, it is clear that petitioner had suffered abdomen surgery due to steering wheel impact. Further, petitioner underwent laparotomy with ileal perforation repair on 18.11.2016 at DDU Hospital and patient took LAMA on POD2.
d. Period of hospitalization: • Petitioner was first removed to DDU Hospital, where he took LAMA (leave
against medical advice) on POD2. Hence, he was admitted there from 18.11.2016 to 19.11.2016.
• Whereas as per Discharge slip of the petitioner / injured Krishan Kumar issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Pusa Road, Delhi, he was admitted in hospital from 20.11.2016 to 24.11.2016.
• Hence, the total period of hospitalization is about 7 days.
12. MEDICINES & TREATMENT a. In the present case, as per MLC on record, the petitioner/injured- Krishan Kumar who has suffered grievous injuries, received initial treatment at DDU MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 10 of 20 Hosptial and was operated there for Perforative Peritonitis and underwent exploratory laparotomy with ileal perforation repair on 18.11.2016 and remained admitted there from 18.11.2016 to 19.11.2016 and thereafter, he received treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi where he remained admitted there from 20.11.2016 to 24.11.2016.
b. Further, in regard to the treatment undergone by him, petitioner/injured Krishan Kumar has placed on record the medical bills / receipts amounting to ₹53,321.35/- (2860+36,760.11+522+115+886.83+ 815.37+191+2,918+1284.57+261+34.18+41.79+5498.76+149.14+183.60+800). There is no reason to doubt the said bills/receipts. c. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/ injured shall be entitled to a sum of ₹53,321.35/- and accordingly, the petitioner/ injured- Krishan Kumar is awarded the said amount i.e ₹53,321.35/- towards medicines and medical treatment.
13. CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET a. In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner/ injured Krishan Kumar is diagnosed as "Perforative Peritonitis". In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have visited the hospital/doctors for his treatment and would also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident.
b. It is pertinent to mention that neither any amount was claimed on behalf of petitioner for conveyance and Special Diet nor any evidence, documentary or otherwise, in this regard has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner. c. The petitioner was admitted in hospital for about 7 days. He was also operated upon and further advised to avoid heavy weight lifting for 3 months. It goes without saying that he would not have used public transport for quite some time. Assuming that the accused used car or cabs for conveyance for about 3 months after the accident and further assuming that he used conveyance about 10 times a month MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 11 of 20 and each time he incurred an average expenditure of ₹500/-, then his conveyance expenses would come to ₹15,000/- (@ ₹5000/- per month for 3 months). d. Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material on record, petitioner/injured is entitled to a sum of ₹15,000/- towards conveyance. Likewise, in view of the injuries suffered by him, the petitioner/ injured must have needed special diet for a similar period to have a fast and proper recovery. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is also awarded ₹15,000/- towards expenses for special diet.
14. LOSS OF INCOME a. In the present case, as per Aadhar card of petitioner / injured Krishan Kumar, he is permanent resident of Gurgaon, Haryana at the time of accident. In the present case, the petitioner/injured stated that at the time of the accident, he was working as Cab Driver and was earning ₹70,000/- p.m. allegedly. Further, PW1 has also placed on record copy of Bank Passbook reflecting the income of the dependent for the last six months from the date of accident as Ex. PW1/7. However, it is pertinent to mention that PW1 in his affidavit has deposed that he was advised bed rest for a period of three months and due to which he could not work for about 3 months due to the accident. The statement of account filed on record is not legible in terms of dates on which payments were received by the injured from Uber. Also, the payments reflecting in the statements are more random than regular. Thus, his exact monthly income cannot be determined from the said statement. In the absence thereof, the minimum wages in Haryana for Driver in case of Light Vehicle during the relevant period (18.11.2016) i.e. ₹9,809.54/- (₹377.29/- per day for 26 days) is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of income to the petitioner/ injured in this case (for skilled worker, since he is having a commercial driving Licence). b. In the instant case, petitioner/injured is an operated case of "Perforative Peritonitis" and has remained hospitalized for about 7 days. Further, in view of the material on record, it appears that it might have taken about MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 12 of 20 three months for the petitioner/ injured to recover from the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner / injured shall be entitled to a sum of ₹9,809.54/- x 3 = ₹ 29,428.62/- under the head 'Loss of Income'.
15. ATTENDANT CHARGES a. In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/injured has not deposed anything regarding expenditure upon service of attendant. However, Krishan Kumar is a case of "Perforative Peritonitis". b. In these circumstances, the petitioner/ injured Krishan Kumar must have required the services of attendant for about 3 months. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner/injured would have also needed an attendant to look after him, even if the gratuitous services were rendered by the some or the other of this family members. In the case titled as Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. V. Lalita1 it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some of the family members. c. Further, the petitioner must have spent atleast ₹5,000/- per month if he had an attendant. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to an amount of ₹5,000 X 3 = ₹15,000/- towards 'Attendant Charges'.
16. PAIN & SUFFERINGS a. As per the settled law, for assessing the pain & sufferings, the following factors have to be taken into account :-
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment.
1
AIR 1981 Delhi 558
MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 13 of 20
b. In the instant case, in view of the material/evidence on record, there
is no element of doubt that the petitioner/injured has suffered "Perforative
Peritonitis" and has remained hospitalized for about 7 days due to the said injuries sustained by him. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.2, the petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain & suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner/injured can not be adequately compensated in terms of money however, in view of the facts & circumstances of the present case and in view of the material on record, a sum of ₹60,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards the head " pain & sufferings".
17. LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES The petitioner/injured has claimed that he has suffered loss of enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. The petitioner/injured was about 36 years of age (as per Aadhar Card DOB of PW1 is 01.01.1981) at the time of accident and has suffered grievous injuries i.e. "Perforative Peritonitis" and advised to avoid lifting heavy object for 3 months. The petitioner has not suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Hence, he would not be entitled to any compensation under this head. However, the petitioner/ injured shall also be entitled to a sum of ₹20,000/- as compensation for mental and physical shock suffered by him due to the accident in this case.
18. LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME / PROSPECTS In the present case as per medical record, petitioner/injured- Krishan Kumar is a case of "Perforative Peritonitis". and has remained hospitalized for about 7 days and that this injury is not permanent in nature. Petitioner has not filed any disability certificate on record to show that he has suffered any permanent 2 Arising out of SLP ( c ) Nos.5649-51 of 2012.
MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 14 of 20 injury due to this accident. Hence, no future income shall be awarded under this head.
19. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded to the petitioner/injured- Krishan Kumar is tabulated as below :-
S.No HEADS AMOUNT (in Rupees)
1 Medicines &Treatment ₹53,321.35/-
2. Conveyance ₹15,000/-
3. Special Diet ₹15,000/-
4. Loss of Income ₹29,428.62/-
5. Attendant Charges ₹15,000/-
6. Pain &sufferings ₹60,000/-
7. Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities. Nil
8. Compensation for mental and physical shock ₹20,000/-
9. Loss of future income /prospects Nil
Total ₹2,07,749.97/-
rounded of as
₹2,10,000/-
Accordingly, a sum of ₹2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Ten Thousand only) is awarded as compensation to the petitioner Krishan Kumar in the present case.
20. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case, in view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd3. Hence, the petitioner/injured is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e. ₹2,10,000/- from the date of filing of case/DAR i.e. 07.01.2017 till realization.
32020 SCL Onlinie SC (60) MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 15 of 20
21. LIABILITY The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 / Sunil Kr Yadav, owned by respondent no. 2- Excellent Structure Pvt. Ltd. and was insured with respondent no. 3 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd at the time of accident. In these circumstances, respondent no. 3/ IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd shall be liable to pay the awarded amount to the petitioner/injured .
Hence, issue no.2 is decided accordingly.
22. RELIEF Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of ₹2,10,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 07.01.2017 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioner/injured-Krishan Kumar. The above-said compensation amount shall be payable by the respondent no.3 / IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd to the petitioner/injured.
23. FORM-IVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 18.11.2016
ii). Name of the injured : Krishan Kumar
iii). Age of the injured : 35 years ( at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the injured: Cab Driver (as alleged)
v). Income of the injured : ₹9,809.54/- p.m (Minimum wages for skilled labour) MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 16 of 20
vi). Nature of injury : Grievous
vii). Medical treatment taken : DDU Hospital & by the injured Sir Ganga Ram Hospital
viii). Period of hospitalization : 18.11.2016 till 24.11.2016 About 07 days
ix). Whether any permanent: No disability?If yes, give details
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment ₹53,321.35/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹15,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹15,000/-
(iv) Cost of attendant ₹15,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity -
(vi) Loss of income ₹29,428.62/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require -
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non- Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and ₹20,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering ₹60,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv) Disfiguration -
(v) Loss of marriage prospects -
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, -
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.,
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 17 of 20
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and -N.A-
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of -
expectation of life span on account
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity -
in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income-(Income x % -
Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. Total Compensation ₹2,07,749.97/-
rounded of to ₹2,10,000/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of @ 9% per annum from the
award date of filing of DARi.e.
07.01.2017 till realization.
17. Total amount including interest ₹2,10,000/- + interest @
9% per annum from the
date of filing of the
DARi.e. 07.01.2017 till
realization.
18. Award amount released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
20. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB amount to the claimant(s) (Clause29) Account of the petitioner/injured.
21 Next Date for compliance of the 19.07.2022 award. ( Clause 31)
24. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited /transferred by respondent no. 3 / IFFCO Tokio Insurance Co. Ltd in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (South-West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi ' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioner and his counsel, to the MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 18 of 20 Nazir of this court .
Further, the statement of petitioner/injured- Krishan Kumar regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner/injured and having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case, the award amount be distributed as follows:-
S. Name Status Amount of Release Amount /Period of FDR No. Award Amount
1. Krishan Injured ₹2,10,000/- ₹30,000/- ₹1,80,000/-be kept in 12 Kumar FDRs of ₹15,000/- each for the period from one month to 12 months in the name of petitioner/ injured with cumulative interest.
25. In the instant case, it is being stated that petitioner Krishan Kumar is having a Saving Bank Account No. 18462122001617 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurugram, Haryana (IFSC Code: ORBC0101846), PAN :
AJMPY5491J, wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is issued in this account".
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to keep the above-said amount awarded to the said petitioner in the form of above-mentioned FDR.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of the said petitioner.
The original FDR shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to the said petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the above-said FDR to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 19 of 20 automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the said petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to the said petitioner.
The petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the above-said saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
26. The insurance company shall inform the petitioner as well as his counsel through registered post that the award amount is being transferred/ deposited so as to facilitate the petitioners to know about the deposit in the account.
Certified copy of this award be sent to the concerned Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi, for information / compliance.
Certified copy of this award be also given 'Dasti' to the petitioner / his counsel and Ld. Counsel for the respondent/insurance company.
Certified copy of this award be also sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate misc. file and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 19.07.2022.
File be consigned to the record room. SUMEDH Digitally signed
by SUMEDH
KUMAR KUMAR SETHI
Date: 2022.04.19
SETHI 17:36:52 +05'30'
(Announced in the open (Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi)
Court on 19th of April, 2022) PO, MACT -01, (South-West District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
19.04.2022
MACP No. 11/17 Krishan Kumar vs. Sunil Kr Yadav & Ors. Page no. 20 of 20