Delhi District Court
Sunita vs Anil Kumar And Ors on 24 May, 2025
Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 1 of61
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New No. 477/18
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-007496-2018
Sunita
W/o Sh. Suresh Mathur
R/o H.No. 171, Paana Satghara,
V.P.O. Karala, New Delhi-110081
Through
Sh. Suresh Mathur (Husband/parokar)
S/o Sh. Raj Mal Mathur,
R/o H.No. 171, Paana Satghara,
V.P.O. Karala, New Delhi-110081
........ Petitioner/claimant
Versus
1. Anil Kumar Patel
S/o Sh. Pyare Lal
R/o Village Kharagpur, Tehsil Soraon,
P.S. Holagarh, District Allahbad,
Uttar Pradesh-212502
....... Driver/R1
2. Kuldeep
S/o Sh. Darshan Lal
R/o C-9, Pradhan Enclave,
Burari, New Delhi
....... Owner/R2
3. Surender Bansal
S/o Sh. Babu Ram Bansal
R/o H.No. G-1/56, Budh Vihar, Phase-1,
New Delhi
....... Subsequent Owner/R3
4. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.
F.A.I. Building, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutab Institutional Area,
New Delhi
........Insurance Company/R4
..... Respondents
Page 1 of61
Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 2 of61
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 12.07.2018
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 16.05.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.05.2025
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT
REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs.
JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 15.09.2017
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 12.07.2018
investigating officer to the Claims
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 12.07.2018
investigating officer to the insurance
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Not available on
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan record
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 12.07.2018
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the 12.07.2018
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant 12.07.2018
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes
respects?
Page 2 of61
Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 3 of61
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR No
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 12.07.2018
Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. Akshay
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Kumar, Ld.
Company. Counsel for
insurance
company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Yes
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No
admitted the liability? If so, whether the
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or N/A
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to Legal offer filed
the offer of the Insurance Company . but not accepted
18. Date of the Award 24.05.2025
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
Page 3 of61
Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 4 of61
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 12.08.2024
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 18.10.2024
produced the passbook of their saving
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Sunita,
claimant(s) and the address of the bank savings bank a/c
with IFSC Code No.43393862669
, SBI, Karala
Branch, Delhi,
IFSC :
SBIN0050381
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
Jaibir Singh.
Page 4 of61
Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 5 of61
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR), was filed in this case on 12.07.2018, with reference to FIR No. 349/17, U/s 279/337 IPC, PS Kanjhawala, Delhi, in respect of simple hurt, sustained by the petitioner Sunita, in a road traffic accident, on 15.09.2017, at about 4.30 pm, at Sultanpur Karala Road, opposite Pradhan Academy, Karala, Delhi. Subsequently, chargesheet was filed against the driver Anil Kumar Patel (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent no.1/R1/driver), for the commission of offence U/s 279/338 IPC, as Section 338 IPC was added against R1, as the injuries sustained by the petitioner was opined to be dangerous in nature. The Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, vide order dated 12.07.2018, treated the DAR as claim petition U/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act').
2. Brief facts of the case, as discernible from the DAR, including the documents annexed with DAR, are that, on 15.09.2017, at about 4.30 pm, when the petitioner Sunita (hereinafter referred to as the claimant/petitioner/injured), was going on Scooty, bearing registration no. DL-8SBH-1602 and she reached at Sultanpur Karala Road, opposite Pradhan Academy, Karala, Delhi, she was hit by one red colour Eicher Canter, bearing registration no. DL-1LV-0740 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, Page 5 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 6 of61 by its driver/R1. It was further alleged that as a result of the said impact, the petitioner along with her scooty, fell down on the road and sustained injuries. It was further averred that thereafter, R1 stopped the offending vehicle and one Gopal @ Boby S/o Late Karan Singh, had taken the petitioner, in the vehicle of Harpal R/o Village Madanpur, to Cygnus Hospital, Rama Vihar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Cygnus Hospital), where she was medically examined, vide MLC No. 307/17, as per which, injuries sustained by the petitioner, was opined to be dangerous in nature.
3. As per DAR, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by R1, the same was registered in the name Kuldeep S/o Sh. Darshan Lal (hereinafter referred as owner of the offending vehicle/respondent no.2/R2) and was in possession of Surender Bansal S/o Sh. Babu Ram Bansal (hereinafter referred as possessory owner/R3). As per DAR, the offending vehicle was insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as insurance company/R4), vide Policy No. 69857633, valid for the period 30.10.2016 to 29.10.2017.
4. R1 has filed written statement to the DAR, wherein he stated that at the time of accident, he was having a valid driving license no. UP7020100041001, issued by the Licensing Authority, at Allahabad, U.P., R2 was the owner of the said vehicle and same was insured with R4, for the Page 6 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 7 of61 period 30.10.2016 to 29.10.2017. R1 however denied that the alleged accident has ever taken place.
5. R2 and R3 although appeared at the time of filing of DAR, but, they have chosen not to file any written statement, to the DAR/claim petition.
6. R4/IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., has filed a legal offer, wherein R4/insurance has offered to pay compensation of Rs. 1,28,610/-, plus medical bills, subject to submissions of originals and verification thereof. Since, the said legal offer was not acceptable to the petitioner therefore, the present claim petition was proceeded further, for trial.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated 13.12.2018:-
1. Whether petitioner Smt. Sunita W/o Sh. Suresh Mathur suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 15.09.2017 at about 04.30 pm, near Sultanpur Karala Road, opposite Pardhan Tennis Academy, Karala, Delhi, due to rah and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration no. DL-1LV-0740 which was being driven by driver Sh. Anil S/o Sh. Pyare Lal on the said date, time and place? OPP
2. Whether petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
Page 7 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 8 of61
3. Relief.
8. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading evidence in support of the same. In support of the case of petitioner, husband of the petitioner has examined 04 witnesses. R4/insurance company has also examined one witness.
9. On behalf of the petitioner Sh. Gopal @ Baby, was examined as PW1, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein he deposed that he is a farmer and that he has witnessed the accident, which took place on 15.09.2017. He further deposed that his children were learning game of Tennis and for that purpose, they were taking sports classes, at Pradhan Tennis Academy, Sultanpur Road, Karala, New Delhi. He further deposed that on the fateful day, at around 4:30 p.m., when he reached at the gate of Pradhan Tennis Academy, he saw that an Eicher Canter, registration no. DL1LV-0740, which was coming at a high speed, from the side of Sultanpur village, hit a scooty, driven by a lady, coming from Karala village side and going towards Sultanpur village. He further deposed that after the accident, the woman and the scooty fell down and the canter driver also stopped his canter, a few meters away from the site of accident. He further deposed that he rushed to the woman, who was unconscious and was bleeding profusely. He further deposed that few people also gathered Page 8 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 9 of61 at the site of accident and he immediately made a call at 100 number i.e. the emergency contact number, and informed the police, about the accident. He further deposed that in the commotion, when every body was saying to take the lady to the hospital, one Sh. Harpal, who was also present there, to drop his children, to the same Pradhan Tennis Academy, offered his car for help and also said that he will take the lady to the hospital, in his car. He further deposed that with the help of the persons, who gathered there, he lifted the lady and laid her on the back seat of the car of Sh. Harpal, along with her belongings. He further deposed that a woman also sat in the car of Sh. Harpal and held the head of the injured lady, so that it does not bleed and then they took the injured lady to the hospital, after removing the debris, lying on the road, of broken plastic and pieces of the scooty. He further deposed that after the injured lady was taken to the hospital and he enquired from the driver, about his name and address, he told his name as Anil S/o Shri Pyare Lal R/o: Village Kajargapur, Holagarh, District Allahabad, U.P. He further deposed that a few minutes later, police officials came to the spot of accident and he handed over the driver of the canter to them, for further inquiry and investigation.
10. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for respondent no.1 and 2, wherein he deposed that he does not know, what is written in Ex.PW1/A and he does not know also, as to where the affidavit Ex.PW1/A was prepared. He further Page 9 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 10 of61 deposed that the accident occurred two and half years ago, at Sultanpuri Road, near Lawn Tennis Academy. He further deposed that he does not know, the exact date, when the accident has occurred. He further deposed that he does not know, whether their advocate has told him, whatever is written in Ex.PW1/A in Hindi, however, he has told him to bring his Aadhar Card.
11. PW1 was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R4, wherein he deposed that at the time of accident, he was less than 100 feet away, from the spot. He admitted that the speed of the offending vehicle was normal, at the time of accident. He further deposed that the accident has occurred at around 4.30 PM and after the accident, the injured was unconscious. He further deposed that he did not take the injured to the hospital. He further deposed that the injured was removed to the hospital, by Harpal, whose children were taking training of Lawn Tennis. He admitted that he has informed the police, about the accident and police recorded his statement on the same day, however, he does not remember the exact date, when the police recorded his statement and thereafter, police never called him. He further deposed that he does not remember, whether police seized the offending vehicle, on the same day or not. He denied the suggestion, that he was not present on the spot, on the day. He further denied the suggestion, that he is deposing falsely, to benefit the injured, being of the same village. He voluntarily deposed Page 10 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 11 of61 that he was not aware, whether the injured was of his village or not.
12. The husband of the petitioner, further examined Sh. Harpal Dabas S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh as PW2, who led is evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A, wherein he deposed that he lives at the address mentioned in his affidavit, along with his family and work in a private company. In his evidence, he has placed reliance upon copy of his Adhaar card as PW-2/1. He further deposed that on 15.09.2017, in the evening, when he went to Pradhan Tennis Academy, to drop his children, in his car, for tennis classes, he saw an accident. He further deposed that a Scooty, driven by a lady was hit from side, by an Eicher Canter, bearing registration No DL-1LV-0740, coming from the direction of Sultan Pur Village. He further deposed that after the accident, the lady fell on the road and was bleeding heavily, due to the injuries and blood was coming out from her head. He further deposed that with the help of passerby, who gathered there, after the accident and one Sh. Gopal, he lifted the injured lady, from the road and laid her in the back seat of his car. He further deposed that an unknown lady also accompanied him in the car, who was holding the head of the injured lady, as she was bleeding heavily. He further deposed that after the lady was put in the back seat of his car, he along with other persons removed the scooty and other broken things, from the road and took the helmet and purse of the injured lady, along with him, in the car, to Page 11 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 12 of61 Cygnus Hospital. He further deposed that after reaching there, they handed over the injured lady to the doctor present there and informed them, that it is an accident case and requested them for her treatment. He further deposed that after around half an hour, the husband and other family members of the injured also came to the hospital and he informed about the whole accident and handed over the helmet and purse of the injured lady to her husband. He further deposed that he stayed in the hospital, for around one and half hour and consoled the family members of the injured, who were very sad, due to the said accident. He further deposed that after all this, he left the hospital and came back to his house.
13. PW2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R1 & R2, wherein he deposed that he knew the contents of his evidence by way of affidavit. He further deposed that he does not remember the date, when he had signed his evidence by way of affidavit. He further deposed that he does not know the injured Sunita. He further deposed that he only helped her, on humanitarian ground. He further deposed that the accident took place on 15.09.2017, at about 6:00 pm. He further deposed that he was standing near Tennis Academy, when he saw that one Eicher Canter, came from the side of Sultanpur to Karala, and that the said Eicher Canter had hit a scooty, due to which the rider/driver of the scooty, who was a lady, fell down on the road and has sustained injuries. He denied the suggestion, that he was not Page 12 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 13 of61 present at the spot of accident. He further denied the suggestion, that he was deposing falsely, at the instance of the petitioner.
14. PW2 was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Insurance company/R4, wherein he deposed that at the time of accident, he was standing outside the gate of Pradhan Tennis Academy, waiting for his children. He further deposed that he had seen the offending vehicle, prior to the case accident. He further deposed that he did not inform the police, regarding the case accident. He further deposed that he did not tell his address to anybody, at the spot of accident or while leaving the hospital. He further deposed that the helmet of the injured/petitioner was of black colour.
15. On behalf of the petitioner, Sh. Suresh Mathur, husband of the petitioner got himself examined as PW3, by his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A. His deposition qua the accident and injuries sustained by the petitioner, in the case accident, is reiteration of the facts mentioned in the DAR/claim petition. He further deposed that after some time, he along with his family members reached at Cygnus Hospital and Sh. Harpal informed him, about the whole accident and he handed over to him, the helmet and purse of his wife. He further deposed that during his stay in the hospital, said Harpal consoled him and his family members and thereafter, he left from the hospital. He further deposed Page 13 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 14 of61 that later on, his wife was shifted to BLK Hospital, for further treatment and she was discharged from BLK Hospital on 11.10.2017. He further deposed that he has spent about Rs. 16 lakh on treatment of his wife, including bills of BLK Hospital, dated 11.10.2017, of Rs. 13,73,834/-, bills of Rs. 2,33,807/-, from 2018 to 2023. He further deposed that out of the said amount, Rs.6,60,000/- has been claimed by him, from Max Bupa Insurance Company and remaining amount of Rs. 9,47,641/- have not been reimbursed. He further deposed that his wife was a home teacher and she used to teach student and was earning handsomely. He further deposed that she was an income tax payee and her ITR for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18, are showing her income as Rs. 2,56,417/- and Rs. 3,20,343/- respectively. He further deposed that his wife/injured has loss of income, during her treatment period from 15.09.2017 to November 2023, which is amounting Rs.19,74,430/- (Rs.26,695/- x 74 months). He further deposed that his wife is highly qualified, as she is B.A., M.A. (Hindi), B.Ed, JBT and she has already qualified CTET in the year 2016. He further deposed that his wife was having great future prospects and she was aged about 31 years, at the time of accident and her date of birth is 17.02.1986. He further deposed that his wife/injured, is in coma, since her accident and she is 100% disabled. He further deposed that his wife is bed ridden and female attendant is hired for her look after, and he is paying Rs. 10,000/- per month to her. He further deposed that his wife Page 14 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 15 of61 was having sound health and robust physique and due to this road accident, she suffered loss of present and future earning. He further deposed that R1 is the driver, R2 is the owner, whereas R4 is the insurer of the offending vehicle, which caused permanent disability to his wife and therefore, respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. In his evidence, he has placed reliance upon copy of his Aadhar card as Ex.PW3/1, original medical bills of the petitioner Smt. Sunita as Ex.PW3/2, ITRs of the petitioner, for the assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18, as Ex.PW3/3(Colly), copy of educational qualification documents of the petitioner Smt. Sunita as Ex.PW3/4, original disability certificate of the petitioner Smt. Sunita as Ex.PW3/5 and DAR filed by the IO as Ex.PW3/6 (Colly).
16. PW3 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company /R4, wherein he deposed that he had not seen the accident in question. He admitted that, as he had not seen the accident, that is why, he cannot say, as to how the offending vehicle was driven at the relevant time. He further deposed that he handed over the helmet to the IO, after about 5-10 days of the accident. He denied the suggestion, that the injured was not wearing helmet, at the relevant time. He further denied the suggestion, that the helmet was given to the IO, as an after-thought. He admitted that he has not placed on record any document, showing therein, that the injured was giving tuitions (home Page 15 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 16 of61 teacher), at the relevant time. He voluntarily deposed that there is no record for home tuition but, her income is mentioned in the ITR and ITR is on record. He admitted that he has not placed on record, any document, other than the ITR, in support of the income of the injured. He further admitted that as per the ITRs, Ex. PW3/3, the income of the injured has been shown to be "income from house property". He denied the suggestion, that injured was not doing anything and was not earning any amount, at the time of accident. He further deposed that he has placed on record the disability certificate, issued by Medical Board, at G.B. Pant Hospital, showing therein the disability of 100%. He further deposed that he has not placed on record, any document, showing therein, engagement of any attendant or making payment to any attendant. He voluntarily deposed that he used to pay the amount in cash. He denied the suggestion, that no attendant has been engaged and no payment has been made to any attendant. He further denied the suggestion, that medical bills placed on record, have not been supported by the prescription of the doctor. He further deposed that after the accident, the injured was taken to Cygnus Hospital, thereafter, she was taken to B.L. Kapoor hospital and subsequently, she was taken to Nidan Hospital, Sonipat and DDK Hospital Bahadurgarh. He further deposed that she was not referred by any doctor to Nidan Hospital and DDK Hospital. He denied the suggestion, that bills pertaining to the admission of the petitioner, in Nidan Hospital and DDK Hospital are fake and procured bills. He Page 16 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 17 of61 further denied the suggestion, that the injured was not treated at these hospitals. He admitted that the requisition slip dated 29.07.2018 and bill dated 29.07.2018, pertaining to J.J. Institute of Medical Science and Pvt. Ltd. (page no. 33 and 34 part of Ex. PW3/2), does not pertain to the injured. He deposed that these documents are in the name of Mrs. Nirmala Devi. He voluntarily deposed that these were submitted inadvertently. He denied the suggestion, that the medical bills placed on record are fake and procured bills, just to extract compensation.
17. The petitioner further examined Dr. Sri Harsha Kandikonda, Senior Resident, Neurosurgery, G.B. Pant Hospital, Delhi, as PW4. He was a summoned witness. He deposed that he has been authorized by Dr. Anita Jagetia, Director Professor & Head, Department of Neurosurgery, to depose in the court and endorsement of authorization is Ex. PW4/A. He further deposed that he has brought the summoned permanent disability record, of patient Sunita. He exhibited the disability certificate as Ex. PW4/B (certified copy is already on record). After going through the said certificate, he deposed that that the signatures of Nodal Officer, is appearing at point A, signatures of Dr. Neera Chaudhary, is appearing at point B and signatures of Dr. Nidhi Yadav, is appearing at point C and he can also identify the signatures of said doctors, as he has worked with them. He further deposed that as per the opinion of the Page 17 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 18 of61 medical board, the patient Sunita was found to have permanent physical impairment of 100%, in relation to complete whole body paralysis, with bladder involvement. He further deposed that patient is also not mentally fit and have intellectual disability. He further deposed that he has also brought assessment chart and he exhibited photocopy of the same, lying in the judicial file as Ex. PW4/C (02 pages). He further deposed that as per assessment chart, the patient is permanently dependent on the attendant. He further deposed that she needs continuous care by an attendant, as she cannot take care of herself. He further deposed that she herself cannot attend to the natural call.
18. PW4 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R4, wherein he deposed that he was not the member of the medical board, which has issued the disability certificate. He further deposed that he has worked with Dr. Nidhi Yadav, for a period of one year and Dr. Neera Chaudhary, who is still working in the hospital. He further deposed that the complete case details of the patient Smt. Sunita was discussed with him, by Dr. Anita Jagetia, for deposing before this court. He further deposed that the patient was examined in the hospital on 21.08.2023, for assessment of her disability. He further deposed that as per Ex. PW4/C, in para no. 3, it was mentioned that current neurological status of the patient is mRS5, which means modified Rankin scale, which depicts of neurological status of a patient, as per which, the patient is in a vegetative state.
Page 18 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 19 of61 He further deposed that the modified Rankin scale has 6 points, 1 to 6. mRS1 is the best outcome and mRS6 means dead. He further deposed that while assessing the disability certificate, the medical treatment record of the patient is duly checked. He further deposed that as per his understanding and after taking into consideration, the assessment qua the patient, as carried out, he can say that patient is severally disabled and needs constant nursing care and is incontinent and unfit for her personal care. He further deposed that he cannot say, whether there are any chances of improvement of the patient, as the disability board had already issued permanent disability certificate qua the patient.
19. R4/insurance company has examined HC Rahul Kumar as R4W1. He was a summoned witness. He deposed that in this matter, the first IO was SI Om Prakash, who has retired. He further deposed that subsequently, he was deputed as IO, in this matter and he filed the charge sheet in this matter. He further deposed that he cannot tell about the status of the matter, before Ld. JM. He further deposed that the place of accident was a single road. He further deposed that both the vehicles were coming from opposite side. He further deposed that the helmet of the injured was not seized from the place of accident. He further deposed that as per the record, the eye witness took the helmet and purse of the injured in his car, which was subsequently handed over to the husband of the injured, namely Suresh Mathur Page 19 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 20 of61 and later on, Suresh Mathur handed over the helmet and purse to the first IO, vide seizure memo dated 02.10.2017, exhibited as Ex. R4W1/1. R4W1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, wherein he admitted that helmet of the victim was seized by the first IO, vide seizure memo dated 02.10.2017.
20. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record, including written arguments.
21. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings of this Tribunal, are reproduced herein below:
ISSUE No. 1Whether petitioner Smt. Sunita W/o Sh. Suresh Mathur suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 15.09.2017 at about 04.30 pm, near Sultanpur Karala Road, opposite Pardhan Tennis Academy, Karala, Delhi, due to rah and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration no. DL-1LV-0740 which was being driven by driver Sh. Anil S/o Sh. Pyare Lal on the said date, time and place? OPP
22. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioner/claimant. For deciding the present issue, the testimony of PW1 Sh. Gopal @ Boby and PW2 Sh. Harpal is relevant, because as per criminal case record, they both were eye witnesses of the case accident.
Page 20 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 21 of61 PW1 Sh. Gopal lead his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein he deposed that he is a farmer and that he has witnessed the accident, which took place on 15.09.2017. He further deposed that his children were learning game of Tennis and for that purpose, they were taking sports classes, at Pradhan Tennis Academy, Sultanpur Road, Karala, New Delhi. He further deposed that on the fateful day, at around 4:30 p.m., when he reached at the gate of Pradhan Tennis Academy, he saw that an Eicher Canter, registration no. DL-1LV-0740, which was coming at a high speed, from the side of Sultanpur village, hit a scooty, driven by a lady, coming from Karala village side and going towards Sultanpur village. He further deposed that after the accident, the woman and the scooty fell down and the canter driver also stopped his canter, a few meters away from the site of accident. He further deposed that he rushed to the woman, who was unconscious and was bleeding profusely. He further deposed that few people also gathered at the site of accident and he immediately made a call at 100 number i.e. the emergency contact number, and informed the police about the accident. He further deposed that in the commotion, when every body was saying to take the lady to the hospital, one Sh. Harpal, who was also present there, to drop his children, to the same Pradhan Tennis Academy, offered his car, for help and also said that he will take the lady to the hospital, in his car. He further deposed that with the help of the persons, who gathered there, he lifted the lady and laid her on the Page 21 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 22 of61 back seat of the car of Sh. Harpal, along with her belongings. He further deposed that a woman also sat in the car of Sh. Harpal and held the head of the injured lady, so that it does not bleed and then they took the injured lady to the hospital, after removing the debris, lying on the road, of broken plastic and pieces of the scooty. He further deposed that after the injured lady was taken to the hospital and he enquired from the driver, about his name and address, he told his name as Anil S/o Shri Pyare Lal R/o: Village Kajargapur, Holagarh, District Allahabad, U.P. He further deposed that a few minutes later, police officials came to the spot of accident and he handed over the driver of the canter to them, for further inquiry and investigation.
23. The petitioner further examined another eye witness namely Sh. Harpal Dabas S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh as PW2, who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A, wherein he deposed that on 15.09.2017, in the evening, when he went to Pradhan Tennis academy, to drop his children, in his car, for tennis classes, he saw an accident. He further deposed that a Scooty, driven by a lady was hit from side, by an Eicher Canter, bearing registration No DL-1LV-0740, coming from the direction of Sultan Pur Village. He further deposed that after the accident, the lady fell on the road and was bleeding heavily, due to the injuries and blood was coming out from her head. He further deposed that with the help of passerby, who Page 22 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 23 of61 gathered there, after the accident and one Sh. Gopal, he lifted the injured lady, from the road and laid her in the back seat of his car. He further deposed that an unknown lady also accompanied him in the car, who was holding the head of the injured lady, as she was bleeding heavily. He further deposed that after the lady was put in the back seat of his car, he along with other persons removed the scooty and other broken things, from the road and took the helmet and purse of the injured lady, along with him, in the car to Cygnus Hospital. He further deposed that after reaching there, they handed over the injured lady to the doctor present there and informed them, that it is an accident case and requested them for her treatment. He further deposed that after around half an hour, the husband and other family members of the injured, also came to the hospital and he informed about the whole accident and handed over the helmet and purse of the injured lady, to her husband. He further deposed that he stayed in the hospital, for around one and half hour and consoled the family members of the injured, who were very sad, due to the said accident. He further deposed that after all this, he left the hospital and came back to his house.
24. Both PW1 and PW2, thus corroborates each other's version, regarding the manner of accident and as to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, in the case accident. Ld. counsel for insurance company/R4, during the course of arguments, argued that since the eye witnesses, nowhere Page 23 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 24 of61 in their examination in chief, deposed about rashness or negligence, on the part of the driver/R1 thus, the aspect of rashness or negligence, against the driver/R1, remains unproved. It was further argued that during the course of his examination in chief, PW1 deposed merely as to high speed of the offending vehicle but, during the course of his cross examination on behalf of R4, he admitted that the speed of the offending vehicle was normal, at the time of accident therefore, the same proves absence of any rashness or negligence of R1, in causing the accident in question. He further argued that even if it is presumed, that the offending vehicle was driven by R1, at a high speed, that in itself, is not a proof of rashness or negligence, on the part of R1, resulting in the case accident. In support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled as "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Meena Variyal and others, 2007 ACJ 1284; Minu B. Mehta and another vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and another, 1977 ACJ 118.
25. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that lodging of FIR and filing of chargesheet against the driver/R1, is itself sufficient, to prove that R1 was rash and negligent, at the time of accident, even when eye witness was not examined. In support of her contention, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled as Ranjeet Page 24 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 25 of61 and Anr. Vs Abdul Kayam Neb and anr., in Civil Appeal, arising out of SLP (C) No. 10351/2019, decided on 25.02.2025, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rajani Sahoo & Ors, in Civil Appeal, arising out of SLP (C) No. 29302 of 2019, decided on 02.01.2025, Meera Bai and Ors. Vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., in Civil Appeal, arising out of SLP (C) No. 3886 of 2019, decided on 30.04.2025, Mangla Ram vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 2 ACC 118.
26. In the present matter, though, the testimony of PW1 and PW2, prima facie proves the manner of accident, as they both categorically deposed that the offending vehicle had hit the side of the victim's vehicle, due to which, the petitioner fell down on the road, along with her scooty and even as per first statement of PW1, as recorded by the IO, the offending vehicle was driven, on a one way road, at a high speed, the same itself proves rashness, on the part of R1, in causing the accident, at-least on balance of probabilities.
27. It is for R1, to prove that he was not rash or negligent, in driving the offending vehicle, resulting in the case accident but, in his written statement, no such defence was taken by him. He has merely taken the defence, that no such accident has taken place, due to the involvement of the offending vehicle but, R1 failed to put the said defence, to either PW1 or PW2. He further failed to lead any positive Page 25 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 26 of61 evidence, to prove his defence. Per contra, on bare perusal of criminal case record, it stands proved that the accident in question, has taken place, due to involvement of the offending vehicle, because, as per seizure memo, the offending vehicle, was seized from the spot on 15.09.2017, as it was found at the spot, in accidental condition and R1 was also found present at the spot, with the offending vehicle. Further, R1 also failed to prove, that he has ever approached to any higher authority, with respect to his false implication, in the present case. Thus, it can be safely concluded, that R1 failed to prove absence of rashness or negligence, on his part, resulting in the case accident.
28. Even otherwise also, by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which envisages that the accident speaks for itself, this Tribunal can look into the extent of damage suffered by the vehicles, involved in the accident, as well as the nature of injuries suffered by the victims, so as to ascertain the cause behind the accident and to arrive at a finding, as to whether the accident in question had occurred, due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle or not.
29. Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Ravi Kapur vs State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal number1838 of 2009, decided on 16 August, 2012, had reiterated that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in cases, wherein the accident in question speaks for itself and there are reasonable ground to arrive at a finding that the accident could not have Page 26 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 27 of61 occurred without any negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Relevant extract of observations made in para 13 of the judgment passed in the case are noteworthy in this context and are reproduced herein below:
"13. The other principle that is pressed in aid by the courts in such cases is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This doctrine serves two purposes - one that an accident may by its nature be more consistent with its being caused by negligence for which the opposite party is responsible than by any other causes and that in such a case, the mere fact of the accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. Secondly, it is to avoid hardship in cases where the claimant is able to prove the accident but cannot prove how the accident occurred. The courts have also applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in cases where no direct evidence was brought on record. The Act itself contains a provision which concerns with the consequences of driving dangerously alike the provision in the IPC that the vehicle is driven in a manner dangerous to public life. Where a person does such an offence he is punished as per the provisions of Section 184 of the Act. The courts have also taken the concept of 'culpable rashness' and 'culpable negligence' into consideration in cases of road accidents. 'Culpable rashness' is acting with the consciousness that mischievous and illegal consequences may follow but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite consciousness (luxuria). 'Culpable negligence' is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness.
Page 27 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 28 of61 The imputability arises from the neglect of civic duty of circumspection. In such a case the mere fact of accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. This maxim suggests that on the circumstances of a given case the res speaks and is eloquent because the facts stand unexplained, with the result that the natural and reasonable inference from the facts, not a conjectural inference, shows that the act is attributable to some person's negligent conduct. [Ref. Justice Rajesh Tandon's 'An Exhaustive Commentary on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' (First Edition, 2010]."
30. In the case of Sayad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka 1980 SCR (1) 25, 1979 AIR 1848 decided on 25.07.1979 , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that when an accident is of such a nature which could not have occurred without the negligence of the person having management or control over the offending vehicle, then, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be invoked to arrive at a finding of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle, in the absence of other direct evidence, pointing towards the guilt of the driver of the offending vehicle. Relevant extract of the observation made in Sayad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka is reproduced herein below:
"As a rule, mere proof that an event has happened or an accident has occurred, the cause of which is unknown, is not evidence of negligence. But the peculiar circumstances constituting the event or accident, in a particular case, may themselves proclaim in concordant, clear and unambiguous voices the negligence of somebody as the cause of the event or accident. It is to such cases that the maxim res ipsa loquitur may apply, if the cause of Page 28 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 29 of61 the accident is unknown and no reasonable explanation as to the cause is coming forth from the defendant. To emphasise the point, it may be reiterated, that in such cases, the event or accident must be of a kind which does not happen in the ordinary course of things if those who have the management and control use due care. But, according to some decisions, satisfaction of this condition alone is not sufficient for res ipsa to come into play and it has to be further satisfied that the event which caused the accident was within the defendant's control. The reason for this second requirement is that where the defendant has control of the thing caused the injury, he is in a better position than the plaintiff to explain how the accident occurred. Instances of such special kind of accidents which "tell their own story" of being off-springs of negligence, are furnished by cases, such as where a motor vehicle mounts or projects over a pavement and hurts somebody there or travelling in the vehicle; one car ramming another from behind, or even a head-on-collision on the wrong side of the road. See per Lord Normand in Barkway v. South Wales Transport Co.(1); Cream v. Smith(2) and Richlev v. Fanll(3)."
31. Besides, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had also elaborately explained the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and discussed its applicability in the cases of road traffic accident in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gita Bindal & Ors. MAC.APP.No.179/2004 and CM No.5285/2008 on 12 October, 2012 in following words:
"12. The principle of res ipsa loquitur laid down in the aforesaid four judgments is summarized as under:
i. Res ipsa loquitur means that the accident speaks for itself. In such cases, it is sufficient Page 29 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 30 of61 for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more.
ii. Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.
iii. There are two requirements to attract res ipsa loquitur, (i) that the "thing" causing the damage be under the control of the defendant and (ii) that the accident must be such as would not in the ordinary course of things have happened without negligence.
iv. Res ipsa loquitur is an exception to the normal rule that mere happening of an accident is no evidence of negligence on the part of the driver. This maxim means the mere proof of accident raises the presumption of negligence unless rebutted by the wrongdoer.
v. In some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him, but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the plaintiff can prove the accident, but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence. This hardship is to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur is that the accident speaks for itself or tells its own story.
There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more.
vi. The effect of doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur' is Page 30 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 31 of61 to shift the onus to the defendant in the sense that the doctrine continues to operate unless the defendant calls credible evidence which explains how the accident or mishap may have occurred without negligence, and it seems that the operation of the rule is not displaced merely by expert evidence showing, theoretically, possible ways in which the accident might have happened without the defendant's negligence. The doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur', therefore, plays a very significant role in the law of tort and it is not the relic of the past, but the living force of the day in determining the tortuous liability.
vii. The principal function of the maxim is to prevent injustice which would result if a plaintiff were invariably compelled to prove the precise cause of the accident and the defendant responsible for it, even when the facts bearing in the matter are at the outset unknown to him and often within the knowledge of the defendant.
viii. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has been applied by the Courts in the following cases:-
Where victim was sleeping on a cot placed in front of his house by the side of the road when the offending vehicle dashed against the cot and injured the claimant.
Where a bus had dashed against a tree, causing death of a passenger.
Where a vehicle negotiating a sharp "U" turn dashed against a tree, moved away to a distance of 150 feet from the road and then overturned.
Where a vehicle went-off the road, hit against the tree and rolled down killing a passenger.
Page 31 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 32 of61 Where a truck dashed against the victim standing by roadside.
Where a truck came at breakneck speed without blowing horn and dashed against a 9 years old boy, who was walking on the extreme left side of the road, from behind resulting in instantaneous death."
32. In the present matter also, as per site plan of the spot of accident, as annexed with the DAR, the offending vehicle was coming from opposite direction of the victim's vehicle/scooty, when the offending vehicle, had hit the victim's vehicle, thereby damaging victim's vehicle, as well as causing dangerous injuries to the petitioner Sunita. Further, as per site plan, after the accident, the victim's vehicle was found at point A, and offending vehicle was found at point B i.e a few meters away from the spot of accident. Further, as per deposition of PW1 also, after hitting the victim's vehicle, R1 stopped his vehicle, a few meters away from the site of accident, which prima facie proves that he was driving the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently because, if he was driving his vehicle carefully then, after hitting the petitioner, he must have immediately applied breaks but, as per record, he was able to stop his vehicle, only after the offending vehicle, travelled for a few meters, ahead of spot of accident.
33. Further, perusal of rukka itself reveals that PW1 Gopal @ Baby, has categorically stated that the accident has taken place, due to high speed, rash and negligent driving of the Page 32 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 33 of61 offending vehicle, by the driver of the offending vehicle, but, the said fact has been skipped by him, while deposing before this Tribunal. However, the said fact is part of rukka, FIR and chargesheet. Even the chargesheet has been filed against R1, after due investigation of the present matter. Thus, the entire facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the judgments, as relied upon by the petitioner, proves that the accident could not have taken place, in the absence of rashness and negligence, on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. Consequently, in view of the unrebutted testimony of PW1 and PW2, it stands duly proved, that the accident in question, in which, petitioner has sustained dangerous injuries, as evident from her medical treatment record, has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving, of the offending vehicle by R1.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE No. 2Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP
34. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/claimant is entitled to compensation, in respect of pain and suffering, medical Page 33 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 34 of61 expenses, special diet charges, conveyance charges and other expenditure incurred by her, on the account of injuries, sustained by her in the above-mentioned road traffic accident. This Tribunal shall now examine the entire evidence, including the documents of the petitioner/claimant, for the purpose of arriving at a finding, about the quantum of compensation, to which the petitioner/claimant is entitled.
35. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claim 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 niggardly.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
36. The petitioner has claimed compensation, on account of her medical expenses, due to the injuries sustained by her, in the case accident. To prove the exact expenditure, incurred by the husband of the petitioner, on the medical treatment of the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner namely Suresh Mathur, got himself examined as PW3. In his evidence affidavit, Ex. PW3/A, PW3 deposed that he has spent about Rs.16,07,641/-, on treatment of the petitioner, which is evident from bills of BLK Hospital dated 11.10.2017, for an amount of Rs. 13,73,834/- and other Page 34 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 35 of61 bills, for the period 2018 to 2023, which are for an amount of Rs. 2,33,807/- and out of the said bills, he has claimed reimbursement of Rs. 6,60,000/-, from Max Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd. PW3 further deposed that Rs. 9,47,641/- was not reimbursed to him.
37. However, at the time of clarification, with regard to the amount of reimbursement, the husband of the petitioner, has placed on record, his statement of bank account and premium receipt, as paid by him to Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd.. Perusal of the statement of bank account of PW3, reveals that he has been reimbursed Rs.6,60,000/- and Rs. 90,375/-, by Max Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd., towards the medical expenses, incurred by him, for the treatment of the petitioner, at BLK Hospital and as such, he has received total reimbursement of Rs. 7,50,375/- (Rs.6,60,000/-+90,375/-). Perusal of the medical bills of the petitioner Ex. PW3/2 (colly), reveals that the husband of the petitioner has incurred expenditure of Rs.16,34,216/-, towards the treatment of the petitioner, for which, he has placed on record original bills and since, he has got reimbursement of Rs. 7,50,375/-, from Max Bupa Health Insurance Company thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 8,83,841/-, under this head.
38. During the course of cross-examination of PW3, PW3 admitted that the requisition slip dated 29.07.2018 and bill dated 29.07.2018, pertaining to J.J. Institute of Medical Page 35 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 36 of61 Science and Pvt. Ltd. (page no. 33 and 34 part of Ex. PW3/2), does not pertain to the injured. Thus, the said bills cannot be taken into consideration and the petitioner is entitled for compensation towards original medical bills, which are not in dispute, which is for an aggregate amount of Rs. 8,83,841/-. Thus, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to award compensation of Rs. 8,83,841/-, to the petitioner, under the head of medical expenses.
EXPENSES FOR FUTURE TREATMENT
39. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is still undergoing treatment and her medical treatment shall continue in future. She, therefore urged, that the appropriate amount of compensation, should be awarded to the petitioner for her future treatment. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, vehemently opposed the said arguments, on the ground, that there is every possibility of improvement, in the medical condition of the petitioner, with the passage of time and thus, no amount should be awarded to her, under this head.
40. This Tribunal is not in agreement with the aforesaid contention, raised on behalf of the insurance company, in the light of facts emerging on record and the present medical condition of the injured, being established by way of her medical treatment record and the ocular testimony of Page 36 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 37 of61 Dr. Sri Harsha Kandikonda/PW4, who proved on record disability certificate of the petitioner Ex.PW4/B, as per which, the petitioner has sustained 100% permanent physical disability, in relation to complete whole body paralysis, with bladder involvement. He deposed that the patient is also not mentally fit and have intellectual disability. He further deposed that the patient at present, is permanently dependent on the attendant and she needs continuous care by an attendant, as she cannot take care of herself and she herself cannot attend to the natural call. Even during the course if his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R4, he deposed that he cannot say, whether there are any chances of improvement of the patient, as the disability is permanent in nature. He further deposed that the petitioner at present is in a vegetative state.
41. In the matter titled as "Pritam Singh vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", II(2016) ACC 747 (Delhi), almost similar facts were involved, as the injured/petitioner therein had also suffered 100% permanent disability and after considering the said condition of injured, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, towards future medical treatment of the claimant.
42. From the testimony of PW4, it stands duly proved that the petitioner has sustained 100% permanent physical disability, in relation to her complete whole body paralysis, Page 37 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 38 of61 with bladder involvement. Further, by his evidence, husband of the petitioner/PW3, also proved on record, that considerable amount has already been incurred by him on medical treatment of the petitioner, from the date of accident till date, as she remains admitted in the hospital, from time to time, on several occasions and may still be required to get admitted in the hospital in future as well. Following the aforesaid decision as delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the present case, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- , towards the expenses, for her future treatment under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
43. The husband of the petitioner, on her behalf, has also been claiming compensation, on account of trauma, suffered by her, due to the injuries sustained in the case accident. However, he has not specified the exact compensation amount as claimed under this head. However, taking into consideration, the fact that it has already been proved on record, that as a result of the accident, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries, with 100% permanent disability, in relation to complete whole body paralysis, with bladder involvement. Thus, she would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock, on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of the petitioner, as available on record, nature of injuries and permanent disability, as sustained by Page 38 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 39 of61 her, a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, is granted in favour of the petitioner, under this head.
SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE
44. The husband of the petitioner, on her behalf, has also been claiming compensation, on account of expenditure, incurred by him, towards special diet and conveyance. But, he has not placed on record any prescription slip of a doctor, medical practitioner or dietitian, issued in the name of the petitioner, advising her to take any form of special diet or any bill of special diet, such as high protein diet or liquid diet or nutritional supplements for speedy recovery of the injuries sustained by her, in the case accident.
45. Further, he has also not placed on record, any bill of conveyance, such as bills raised by any private taxi service or ambulance service, availed by him, for taking the petitioner to the hospital from her residence or vice versa, during her treatment period.
46. In such circumstances, the requirement of special diet and conveyance, if any faced by the petitioner, during her treatment period, has to be ascertained, in accordance with the medical condition and disability of the petitioner, which has already been proved as 100%.
47. Thus, this Tribunal is of the opinion that during her treatment and even till date, considering her100% disability, Page 39 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 40 of61 the husband of the petitioner must have incurred expenses, in procuring special diet, for her speedy recovery, as well as in taking the petitioner from her residence to hospital and vice versa. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, is granted under this head to the petitioner, which includes Rs. 75,000/-, each towards special diet and conveyance respectively.
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY
48. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 100% permanent disability, in relation to complete whole body paralysis, with bladder involvement. Same is also evident from Disability Certificate Ex.PW4/B.
49. As per the testimony PW4 Dr. Sri Harsha Kandikonda, who proved on record disability certificate Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C, the petitioner has sustained 100% permanent physical disability, in relation to complete whole body paralysis, with bladder involvement. He deposed that patient is also not mentally fit and have intellectual disabilty. He further deposed that the patient at present, is permanently dependent on an attendant and she needs continuous care by an attendant, as she cannot take care of herself and she herself cannot attend to the natural call. Even during the course of his cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot say, whether there are any chances of improvement of patient, as the Disability Board had already issued permanent disability certificate qua, the Page 40 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 41 of61 patient and that she is in vegetative state.
50. It is thus argued on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner has suffered disability, to the extent of 100%, in relation to complete whole body paralysis, with bladder involvement and he is unable to do any work, from the date of accident, therefore, the functional disability be also taken as 100%.
51. With regard to assessment of functional disability in the accident cases, I am guided by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., CIVIL APPEAL NO.8981 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10383 of 2007) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to held as under:
10. 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 ability (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 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 Page 41 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 42 of61 his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%.
If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may".
52. In the present matter, the testimony of PW4 proves that the petitioner has sustained 100% permanent physical Page 42 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 43 of61 disability, in relation to complete whole body paralysis, with bladder involvement and that she is in a vegetative state and have intellectual disability.
53. In his evidence, PW3 has placed reliance on copy of marksheet of the petitioner of B.A., M.A. (Hindi), B.Ed, JBT and having qualified CTET examination, in the year 2016 as Ex.PW3/4. He deposed that at the time of accident, the petitioner was giving home tuitions and during the course of arguments, he argued that she aspire to become a teacher. Thus, the aforesaid documents of the petitioner, proves that she was giving various exams, so as to do teaching job and since, work of teacher, requires intellectual capacity and as per testimony of PW4, the petitioner is not mentally fit and have intellectual disability, thus, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion, that due to the disability sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner will suffer 100% loss of earning capacity. Hence, the functional disability of the petitioner is considered as 100%.
54. In his evidence, PW3 Sh. Suresh Mathur, has deposed that his wife/petitioner, was a home teacher and she used to teach students and her income is evident from her ITR for the year 2016-17 & 2017-18 i.e Rs. 2,56,417/- and Rs.3,20,343/-. During the course of his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for R4, PW3 admitted that he has not placed on record any document, showing therein that the injured was giving tuitions (home teacher), at the relevant Page 43 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 44 of61 time. He voluntarily deposed that there is no record for home tuition but, her income is mentioned in the ITR on record. He further admitted that as per the ITRs, Ex.PW3/3, the income of the injured has been shown to be "income from house property". However, as the income shown in the ITR is rental income/income, from house property and no proof has been filed, as to the income from tuitions therefore, the income of the petitioner, cannot be ascertained, considering the ITRs of the petitioner.
55. During the course of arguments, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for R4, that PW3 was not able to prove income of the petitioner and although, the petitioner was CTET qualified but, she was not earning anything, at the time of accident therefore, she is not entitled for any compensation, under this head.
56. Per contra, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is highly qualified, having cleared B.A., M.A. (Hindi), B.Ed, JBT and CTET examination, in the year 2016, therefore, she would have earned at-least Rs. 30,000/- per month. In support of her contention, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC App. No. 163/18 titled as Babli Dixit and Anr. vs. Satendra Kumar and Ors, (IFFICO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.) decided on 14.12.2018.
Page 44 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 45 of61
57. In the above cited judgment, the Court while assessing the income of victims, who are highly qualified, by having completed professional courses, after considering their academic record, has observed and assessed the monthly income, as the same income, which would have been earned by the concerned professional, at the entry level.
58. In the present case also, as per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was aged about 31 years 06 months 29 days, at the time of accident and was highly qualified, as she has cleared B.A., M.A. (Hindi), B.Ed, JBT and CTET examination, in the year 2016.
59. In terms of notification bearing no.
Dir./Edn./HQ/EDMC/2014-15/d-3820, dated 05.03.2015, the minimum remuneration for contract teachers, at primary level, was fixed at Rs.27,000/- per month. The said notification was of the year 2015, whereas the accident in question has taken place, in the year 2017 i.e after 7 th Pay commission came into force, wherein salary of teachers were also enhanced. Thus, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion, that the petitioner, who has completed B.A., M.A. (Hindi), B.Ed, JBT and CTET (PR) exam, in the year 2016, must have earned at-least an initial salary of Rs 30,000/- p.m. Thus, her notional income is assessed as Rs. 30,000/- p.m. Page 45 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 46 of61
60. The copy of matriculation certificate of the petitioner/injured shows her date of birth to be 17.02.1986. The date of accident is 15.09.2017. In view of said document, her age was 31 years 06 month and 29 days, as on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 16 in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
61. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of judgment in "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17, the petitioner would be entitled to an addition of 40% of the established income, as she was below the age of 40 years, at the time of his accident. The monthly income of the petitioner is thus calculated as Rs.30,000/- + 40% of 12,000/, which comes to Rs.30,000/-+12,000/-= Rs.42,000/-. Thus, the total loss of earning would be Rs.80,64,000/- (Rs.42000x100/100x12x16). (Reliance placed on Jagdish Vs. Mohan & Ors. (2018) 4 SCC 571 and unreported decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in " The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Arora & Ors.", MAC APP No. 320/2013 decided on 28.09.18). Thus, a sum of Rs. 80,64,000/-, is awarded in favour of the petitioner under this head.
Page 46 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 47 of61 ATTENDANT CHARGES (DURING TREATMENT AND FOR FUTURE)
62. The husband of the petitioner on her behalf had sought compensation, on account of expenditure incurred by him, towards attendant charges. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, that due to the injuries and permanent disability suffered by her, she would have to depend upon the services of the attendant, throughout her remaining life. In this context, the husband of the petitioner Sh. Suresh Mathur got himself examined as PW3, and led his evidence by way affidavit Ex.PW3/A, wherein he deposed that his wife/injured is in coma, since her accident and she is 100% disabled and with the order of the court, her disability was ascertained by the hospital. He further deposed that his wife is bed ridden and female attendant is hired for her look after, and he is paying Rs. 10,000/- per month to her.
63. It is apparent from record, that petitioner has suffered grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from the injuries, she has also suffered permanent disability, to the extent of 100%, in relation to complete whole body paralysis, with bladder involvement. Looking at the medical treatment and disability of the petitioner, notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 100%, in relation to complete whole body paralysis, with bladder involvement, there is requirement of attendant, during her whole life. The petitioner has also Page 47 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 48 of61 examined PW4, who also deposed that as per disability sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner would require attendant for whole life, as she was not even in a position to attend natural call herself.
64. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as "Pritam Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors." (supra) has been pleased to held that in a case where the claimant has been rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 100%, she would definitely require consistent presence of attendant throughout her life. It was further held that in such circumstances, the proper course would be to take care of attendant charges incurred during the treatment as well as for future on the assumption that injured would need to engage an attendant on regular basis. It was also held that the expenditure towards this end, could be computed on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevalent as on the date of accident and to adopt the multiplier as per the age of injured at that time.
65. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon & Anr.", Civil Appeal No. 4648 of 2022, decided on 06.07.2022 has been pleased to hold in para no. 14 that in a case where the claimant has been rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 100%, it would not be justified to grant compensation of future loss as well as earning only for 10 years and attendant charges only for 20 years. In fact, the said amount should Page 48 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 49 of61 be determined applying the multiplier method.
66. Turning back to the facts of the present case, the minimum wages of an unskilled worker, were revised to Rs. 13,584/- w.e.f. 01.04.2017. The accident in question had occurred on 15.09.2017. In these facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is inclined to take the minimum wages at the rate of Rs. 13,584/-, in order to calculate the attendant charges. The age of injured was 31 years 06 month and 29 days as on the date of accident as date of birth of injured as per matriculation certificate is 17.02.1986 and multiplier of 16 is applicable. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 26,08,128/- (Rs.13,584/- X 12 X 16) is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
67. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record, to establish that the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries, due to the accident in question. As per testimony of PW4, it is revealed that as per disability certificate Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C, the petitioner has sustained 100% permanent physical disability, in relation to complete whole body paralysis, with bladder involvement. He deposed that petitioner is also not mentally fit and have intellectual disability. He further deposed that the petitioner at present is permanently dependent on the attendant and she needs continuous care by an attendant, as she cannot Page 49 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 50 of61 take care of herself and she herself cannot attend to the natural call. During the course of his cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot say, whether there are any chances of improvement of patient as the disability board had already issued permanent disability certificate, qua the patient. Thus, it stands proved that the petitioner would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life, after the accident in question, during rest of her life and her quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by her and her continued treatment for considerable period, Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded in favour of the petitioner, towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life. [Reliance placed on decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as " Pritam Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", II(2016) ACC, 747(Delhi)].
LOSS OF EXPECTANCY OF LIFE
68. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/injured vehemently argued that the life expectancy of the injured has been reduced, on account of grievous injuries, sustained by her, due to the accident in question. For this purpose, she referred to ocular testimonies of PW4, as also the medical treatment record of the claimant, as brought on record. She therefore urged that appropriate amount should also be awarded to her under this head. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the insurance company argued that no amount should be awarded under Page 50 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 51 of61 this head, as the petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence in this regard.
69. After considering the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, this Tribunal is in agreement with the contentions raised on behalf of the claimant. The medical condition of the injured has already been discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs. She is shown to be continuously under medical treatment and is lying in bed ridden condition, since after the date of accident and requires continuous nursing care and medical attention. As already discussed above, PW4 Dr. Sri Harsha Kandikonda has categorically deposed that the petitioner is permanently dependent on the attendant and she needs continuous care by an attendant, as she cannot take care of herself and even she herself cannot attend to the natural calls. Even during his cross-examination, PW4 deposed that he can say that patient is severally disabled and needs constant nursing care and is incontinent and unfit for her personal care. Thus, the expectancy of the claimant has definitely been reduced/shortened. Hence, Rs.1,50,000/-, is awarded in favour of the petitioner under this head. [Reliance placed on decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as "
Pritam Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", II(2016) ACC, 747(Delhi)].
70. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner comes to Rs. 1,28,46,344/- which Page 51 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 52 of61 is tabulated as below:-
Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 9,74,216/-
2 Expenses for future treatment Rs. 5,00,000/-
3. Pain & Suffering Rs. 3,00,000/-
4. Special diet & conveyance Rs. 1,50,000/-
5. Loss of earning capacity Rs.80,64,000/-
6. Attendant Charges (during Rs. 26,08,128/-
treatment and for future)
7. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 1,00,000/-
enjoyment of life
8. Loss of expectancy of life Rs. 1,50,000/-
Total Rs. 1,28,46,344/-
(Rupees One crore Twenty Eight Lacs Forty Six thousand Three hundred and forty four only)
71. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) of the back the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case also this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7.50% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. w.e.f. 12.07.2018 till realisation of the compensation amount.
72. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
Page 52 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 53 of61 LIABILITY
73. In the case in hand, R4/insurance company has no statutory defence and since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R4, hence R4 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
74. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., IFFCO Tokio General Insurance co./R4 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 1,28,46,344/- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R4 to the petitioner and his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgment with the Nazir as per rules. R4 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
Page 53 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 54 of61 APPORTIONMENT
75. Statement of petitioner through her husband in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP was recorded on 18.10.2024 regarding her savings bank A/c with endorsement of MACT claims SB A/c, no loan, cheque book & ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding the financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment passed in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
76. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and clause 32 of MCTAP, regarding protection of the award amount, it is hereby directed that on realization, an amount of Rs.28,46,344/- be released to him in his MACT Claims SB A/c no. 43393862669 with SBI, Karala Branch, Delhi, as per rules, that is, the branch near her place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in the form of FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 200 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and pre-mature withdrawal without Page 54 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 55 of61 the prior permission of the Tribunal.
77. The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003. However, till the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue inconvenience, the fixed deposits shall be subject to following conditions:-
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim, that is, the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature Page 55 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 56 of61 discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to 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 card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) 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(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
RELIEF
78. As discussed above, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited/R4 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 1,28,46,344/- with interest @ 7.50% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, 12.07.2018 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days Page 56 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 57 of61 from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R4 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R4 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
79. R4 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
80. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
81. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
82. In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606) {other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) Page 57 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 58 of61 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
83. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
84. In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioner was also recorded on 18.10.2024. The record would show that the relevant documents including copy of aadhar card, PAN card, copy of bank pass book and form 15G of the petitioner have already been supplied to the ld counsel for insurance co. on 18.10.2024 itself.
85. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per Digitally signed rules. SHAMA by SHAMA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.05.24 21:48:23 +0530 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) on 24th May, 2025 P.O. MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi Page 58 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 59 of61 FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 15.09.2017
2. Name of injured: Sunita
3. Age of the injured: About 31 years, 06 month and 08 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: Private work
5. Income of the injured: Rs. 30,000/- per month.
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: Continuous
8. Period of hospitalization: As per record.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: Yes.
100% Permanent Physical Disability
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.9,74,216/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.75,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.75,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.26,08,128/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs. 80,64,000/-
Page 59 of61
Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 60 of61
(vi) Loss of income N/A
(vii) Any other loss which may require N/A
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and N/A
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.3,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of General amenities and Rs.1,00,000/-
enjoyment of life
(iv) Disfiguration N/A
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 100% Permanent Physical nature of disability as permanent or Disability temporary
(ii) Loss of expectancy of life on Rs.1,50,000/-
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 100% capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X Rs. 80,64,000/-[(Rs. 42,000/-
% Earning capacity X Multiplier) per month x12 months x 16(age multiplier) x 100/100 Page 60 of61 Sunita vs Anil Kumar and ors. Page 61 of61 (functional disability)].
(v) Future Medical Expenses N/A 14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 1,28,46,344/- 15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.50%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.66,15,867.16 award
17. Total amount including interest Rs.1,94,62,211.16 (rounded off to Rs. 1,94,62,212/-)
18. Award amount released Rs. 28,46,344/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.1,66,15,868/-
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) clause 29 of MCTAP (Clause29)
21. Next date for compliance of the 23.06.2025 award. (Clause 31) Digitally signed by SHAMA SHAMA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.05.24 21:48:13 +0530 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) on 24th May, 2025 P.O. MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi Page 61 of61