Delhi District Court
Amrit Kumar (Dar) vs Neeraj Sharma (425/18 , O.I.A ) on 8 December, 2023
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.345/2019
FIR no. 425/2018
PS : Okhla Industrial Area
U/s 279/338 IPC & 146/196 M.V. Act
CNR No.: DL SE01-003217-2019
1. Amrit Kumar
S/o Sh. Uttam Kumar
R/o F-158, Lal Kuan,
Pul Prahladpur,
South East, New Delhi.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Neeraj Sharma
S/o Sh. Dhaneshwar Sharma
R/o H. No. B-173, Nikhil Vihar,
Ismailpur, Faridabad,
Haryana.
...R-1/ driver
2. Dilip Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Dhanokhi Sharma
R/o B-22, Nikhil vihar
Faridabad, HR.
.....R-2/owner
Date of accident : 14.10.2018
Date of filing of DAR : 06.05.2019
Date of Decision : 08.12.2023
AWARD
1. In this case, a detailed accident report was filed by police
in terms of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act qua accident of Sh.
Amrit Kumar S/o Sh. Uttam Kumar (hereinafter called 'the
MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 1 of 23
:2:
claimant') and same is treated as Claim Petition in view of the
provisions contained in such Act.
2. Preliminary information regarding accident in question
was received at PS vide DD No. 10A dated 14.10.20218
regarding MLC of injured Amrit Kumar from AIIMS Trauma
Center, upon receipt of which SI C.L. Meena proceeded to
hospital and obtained the same. It was mentioned to be alleged
case of road traffic accident and patient was stated to be
transferred to other government hospital, who could not be
located. On 17.10.2018, his father came to Police Station and
informed about his son admitted in ESI Hospital, Okhla
Industrial Area. Statement of claimant was recorded that on
13.10.2018 at about 11.00 p.m. while he was walking towards
Kalka Mandir alongwith his friends, a motorcycle bearing
registration number HR51AQ 4047 (hereinafter called 'the
offending vehicle') coming from MB Road ESI Hospital had hit
him near Ma Anand Mai Marg, near Okhla Circle because of
which he sustained injuries and he was taken to AIIMS Hospital
by his friend Akash from where he was referred to any other
government hospital for treatment and thus, he got himself
admitted in ESI hospital for further treatment. He contended that
the offending vehicle was being driven in high speed in rash and
negligent manner because of which accident happened. FIR was
got registered. Offending vehicle was found to be owned by
Dalip Kumar Sharma, who was served with notice under Section
133 of M.V. Act, who revealed that the motorcycle was being
driven by his nephew Neeraj Kumar Sharma at the time of
MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 2 of 23
:3:
accident. He also revealed that the insurance policy of the
offending vehicle has already expired and was invalid on the date
of accident. Driver was arrested whose driving license was found
to be valid. Mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was
done. Driver of the offending vehicle refused to undergo judicial
TIP. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed
under Sections 279/338 IPC against driver Neeraj Kumar and
against owner under Section 146/196 M.V. Act. DAR was filed
by Investigating Officer before this Tribunal.
3. IO was directed to produce driver and owner on
06.05.2019 when DAR was filed by him, who stated that
Pabandinama was served upon both driver and owner who did
not comply with the same.
4. Respondent No.1/Driver and respondent no.2/Owner
appeared before the Tribunal on 01.07.2019 and sought time for compliance of the previous order. As the offending vehicle was uninsured, both driver and owner were called upon to show cause as to why they should not be directed to furnish security to the tune of Rs.2 Lakhs to satisfy the award, if any to be passed against them. They were also directed to file affidavit of income and assets. Neither they filed any reply to show cause nor did they deposit any amount for compliance of the award. They also did not choose to contest the petition and did not even file reply to DAR. The opportunity was closed vide order dated 30.09.2019.
5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal vide order dated MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 3 of 23 :4: 30.09.2019 :
i). Whether the injured suffered grievous injury in a road traffic accident on 14.10.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR51AQ 4047 motorcycle being driven by R-1/Neeraj Sharma and owned by R-2/Dalip Kumar Sharma? OPP.
ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
6. Thereafter matter was listed for recording of evidence of petitioner.
7. Repeated opportunities were granted to claimant/petitioner to lead evidence, but no evidence was led and therefore, PE was closed vide order dated 08.12.2023.
8. Matter was then listed for RE. Same was also closed vide order dated 08.12.2023.
9. Matter was then listed for final arguments.
10. Submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the claimant, who requested that the matter be decided on the basis documents on record.
11. On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1 "Whether the injured suffered grievous injury in a road traffic accident on 14.10.2018 due to rash and negligent MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 4 of 23 :5: driving of vehicle no. HR51AQ 4047 motorcycle being driven by R-1/Neeraj Sharma and owned by R-2/Dalip Kumar Sharma? OPP.."
12. What is required to be ascertained is whether rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle resulted in accident which caused injuries to the claimant.
13. It has been held in catena of cases that negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable (support drawn from the case of Bimla Devi & Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors [(2009) 13 SC 530,[ in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, [2001 ACJ 421 SC[, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as [2009 ACJ 287 Del].
14. Further, in the present case, police after investigation had filed charge-sheet against respondent no.1 under section 279 & 338 of IPC which is also suggestive of negligence of respondent no.1/driver in causing the accident. Including in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, as decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it has been held that completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle for the purpose of compensation.
MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 5 of 23 :6:
15. It is also settled that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him as observed by Hon'ble High Court of India in the case of Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310.
16. In the present case also, driver/R-1 did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident. It is noted that R-1 has not filed any response to the DAR and therefore, there is not even basic denial of any accident or involvement of the offending vehicle or that it was not the result of his negligence.
17. Petitioner/claimant has failed to lead any evidence, therefore issue will be decided on the basis of DAR filed in this matter.
18. FIR was registered on the basis of statement of claimant himself, while information about occurrence of incident was received in the police station on 13.10.2018 at 11.00 p.m. DD Entry No.10A is also on record that claimant had met with an accident and received injuries and has been sent to hospital by CATS ambulance. Number of the offending vehicle was duly mentioned in the statement of claimant which forms part of the FIR also. Notice under Section 133 M.V. Act was served to the owner, who did not deny the occurrence of accident and revealed the name of driver at wheels on the date of accident. Upon conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the driver concluding that he was rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle on account of which he had hit the injured.
MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 6 of 23 :7: Site plan has been filed alongwith the charge-sheet which reflect that injured was walking on the side of road when accident happened. Any defence has not been led by any of the respondents. Judicial TIP was refused by respondent no.1/driver and therefore, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him, if other circumstances point towards him.
19. Considering the documents filed alongwith DAR and that driver never contested the petition to contend that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident or that he was driving in normal speed within his lane and that accident is not attributed to his rash driving. Any reply to DAR was not filed despite opportunity.
20. It is thus evident upon bare perusal of DAR as a document/claim petition that accident happened on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the offending vehicle. Issue in hand is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP"
21. Section 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 7 of 23 :8: an application for compensation made under section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award. (3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct."
22. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that the process of determining the compensation by the court is essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science. Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 8 of 23 :9: injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
23. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These general principles have been stated and reiterated in several decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683] .
24. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another , (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just"
compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just", a wide MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 9 of 23 : 10 : discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.. ..."
25. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non- pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future;
(ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
26. Certain principles for delineating just compensation were MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 10 of 23 : 11 : enumerated in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Following observations are relevant in the context:
"40.General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 11 of 23 : 12 : medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and
(vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages-- Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/ disability MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 12 of 23 : 13 : suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability--Item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case."
27. It is settled proposition of law as held in catena of judgments that "just compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to face their lives.
28. As any evidence has not been led, there is nothing to understand the nature of avocation/employment of injured. Since the accident happened in Delhi and injured Amrit Kumar is stated to be resident of Badarpur, South Delhi, therefore, minimum wages of unskilled worker applicable in Delhi on the date of accident to the tune of Rs. 13,584/- shall be applicable.
29. Again, since there is no evidence, as to for how long injured was not able to attend to his work, however considering the nature of injuries as grievous, same is presumably taken to be three months.
MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 13 of 23 : 14 :
30. Having regard to the law as also discussed above regarding compensation, in the present case award amount is calculated as under:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : as any Rs. 10,000/-
bills have not been filed, however, the entire treatment has been taken from ESI hospital after initial reference from AIIMS Trauma Center, therefore, average expenditure is being taken.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : No Rs. 10,000/- bill for conveyance has been filed, however, considering the nature of injury, it can be considered that claimant would not have been in a position to use public transport.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.10,000/- There is no prescription for special diet except that he was advised to stop smoking.
By guess work, compensation can be awarded for special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant :
The nature of injuries are grievous. Rs.10,000/- Even in the absence of documentary proof, compensation for attendant's charges is to be given even if services were rendered by family members.
(v) Loss of income : Rs.40,572/-
Compensation towards loss of income, as noted above is Rs.13,524/- x 3 months = Rs. 40,572/-
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if NA
applicable) :
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : NA
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 14 of 23
: 15 :
(I) Compensation of mental and Rs.20,000/-
physical shock : The nature of injuries are grievous and he would have undergone great mental and physical shock.
(ii) Pain and suffering : Compensation Rs. 20,000/-
for pain and suffering is to be awarded keeping in mind the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner.
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : The Rs.10,000/-
nature of injuries are grievous
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Nil
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed N/A and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Already granted expectation of life span on account of disability : The nature of injuries are grievous
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning N/A capacity in relation to disability: As already discuss above.
(iv) Loss of future Income: N/A
(v) Future medical expenses Nil
Total Compensation Rs.1,30,572/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation after deduction Rs.1,30,572/-
Interest As directed
below
MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 15 of 23
: 16 :
31. It may be noted that in the judgment of Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no. 433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022 it was noted regarding rate of interest:
"25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for the applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding principles for the grant of interest. In Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148, the following was held while interpreting section 171 of the MV Act, 1988:-
Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc. into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the MV Act 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of the law. Interest liability is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 16 of 23 : 17 : Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor Sec. 4-A(3) of Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing are of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal of the High Court as indicated above."
32. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, including in the case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27 July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case from the date of filing of DAR till realization.
Liability :-
33. In this case, offending vehicle was not insured which is a matter of record. Further, R-1 and R-2 failed to deposit the security amount and did not file any reply to DAR. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the above-said guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, entire liability falls on their shoulder and respondent no.1/driver and respondent no.2/owner are held to be liable to pay the compensation and MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 17 of 23 : 18 : award amount in question jointly and severally to the petitioner as held above.
34. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING, A/c No. 35195787436, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir along with calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
35. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
36. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 18 of 23 : 19 : to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
37. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 19 of 23 : 20 : also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semi literate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 20 of 23 : 21 : away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him. The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice....."
38. In this background of legal position, it may be noted that in present case, accused suffered injury and incurred expenses including on medical expenses, special diet, conveyance. Further, in the considered view of this Tribunal, the purpose of such Award is to compensate the petitioner for the financial loss MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 21 of 23 : 22 : already sustained that is to reimburse the same, in the same manner in which he would have otherwise earned.
39. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the above-said guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, entire award amount of Rs.1,30,572/- along with interest, be released to the petitioner/injured in his bank account near his place of residence as per rule/ directions.
FORM -VI-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 14.10.2018 2 Name of injured Amrit Kumar 3 Age of the injured 18 years 4 Occupation of the Not proved.
injured 5 Income of the injured Minimum wages applicable in Delhi on the date of accident to the tune of Rs.13,524/- shall be applicable 6 Nature injury Grievous 7 Medical treatment As per record.
taken by the injured:
MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 22 of 23 : 23 :
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization 9 Whether any No. permanent disability?
40. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be also sent to the DLSA and Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. SHELLY
41. Put up on 09.01.2024 for compliance. ARORA Digitally signed by Announced in the open court SHELLY ARORA on 08.12.2023. Date: 2023.12.08 16:01:29 +0530 (Shelly Arora) PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi 08.12.2023 MACT No.345/2019 Amrit Kumar vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. Page No. 23 of 23