Delhi District Court
Jitender Kumar S/O Sh. Mulakraj Singh vs Mahaveer Prasad S/O Sh. Harish Chand on 1 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA RANI : JUDGE : MACT : DELHI
MACT No. : 1134/08
UNIQUE ID NO. : 02404C0204032008
1. Jitender Kumar S/o Sh. Mulakraj Singh,
R/o C599, Gali No.5, Agar Nagar,
Prem NagarIII, Nangloi, Delhi.
And also: Village Mahargarhi, PS Khurja Dehat,
District Bulandshahar, U.P. .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Sh. Harish Chand,
R/o H.No. D29, Dabuwa Colony, P.S Saran,
Faridabad, Haryana (Driver)
2. Satyawati Devi W/o Sh. Harish Chand Panchal,
R/o H.No. DD315, Sector7,
Dabua Colony, Faridabad, Haryana. (Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
105106, Express Arced Building,
H10, Netaji Subhash Place,
New Delhi110034. (Insurer)
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 18.08.2008
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 26.11.2013
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.02.2014
MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 1 of 26
AWARD:
1. Jitender Kumar (in short the injured) suffered grievous injuries
in a motor vehicle accident on 11.06.2007 at about 12:15 a.m,
within the jurisdiction of PS Saran, Faridabad, Haryana. FIR
bearing No.157/07 for offences punishable under section
279/337/338 IPC was registered. Petitioner has filed claim
under section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (in
short the Act) claiming compensation of Rs. 10 lacs with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum, pleading therein
following facts.
2. On 11.06.2007 at about 12:15 a.m, injured alongwith his brother
were going to Nangla Enclave PartII, from Bata Chowk by a
TSR bearing registration No. HR55F2884 (in short the
offending vehicle). The offending vehicle was being driven by
Mahavir Prasad (in short R1) rashly, negligently, at a very high
speed and in a zig zag manner. Injured advised/warned R1
many times to slow down the offending vehicle but R1 did not
pay any heed and continued to drive the offending vehicle
rashly and negligently. When they reached near Nain Chowk,
Faridabad, R1 hit the offending vehicle against another TSR
MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 2 of 26
coming from front side as a result of this forceful impact the
offending vehicle turned turtle and injured came under the
offending vehicle and suffered grievous/crush injuries. He was
taken to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad by his brother where his MLC
bearing No. RB631/07 was prepared and keeping in view his
grievous injuries he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New
Delhi.
3. He was 20 years old at the time of accident. He was a labourer
and earning Rs. 5,000/ per month. The offending vehicle was
owned by Satyawati Devi (in short R2) and insured with
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (in short R3). All
the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation.
4. R1 & R2 filed common written statement. It is pleaded that alleged offending vehicle was insured with R3 vide policy No. 2040697 which was valid w.e.f 15.05.2007 to 14.05.2008. It is denied that accident took place in the manner alleged by the injured. It is denied that offending vehicle was involved in the accident. It is alleged that R1 & R2 have been falsely implicated in this case by the injured. It is denied that petitioner MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 3 of 26 is entitled to claim Rs. 10 lacs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
5. R3 also filed written statement. It is admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy No. 2040697 which was valid w.e.f 15.05.2007 to 14.05.2008. It is however denied that R3 is liable to pay any compensation saying that petitioner himself was responsible for the injuries sustained by him as he was not vigilant. It is also stated that petitioner has not provided any proof of his income or that he sustained injury in a road accident. It is also stated that the claim of Rs. 10 lacs is without any basis.
6. Following issues are framed by me learned Predecessor vide order dated 28.04.2009.
(i) Whether on 11.06.07 at 12:15 a.m petitioner who was traveling in TSR No. HR55F2884 sustained injuries due to negligent driving of TSR by its driver? OPP
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
7. Petitioner was examined as PW1, Dr. Jitender Singh, HOD MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 4 of 26 (Ortho), BSA Hospital as PW2. Respondents did not lead any evidence.
8. I have carefully perused the material available on the record and also heard counsel for petitioner and counsel for R3.
ISSUE No.1 QUA NEGLIGENCE
9. Injured was examined as PW1. He deposed that on 11.06.07 at about 12:15 a.m, he was traveling in the offending vehicle alongwith his brother. Offending vehicle was being driven by R1 in a zig zag manner and at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently and he was advised by PW1 and warned many times to drive the same cautiously, but he did not listen. He further deposed that R1 hit his TSR against another TSR coming from front side as a result whereof offending vehicle turned turtle and the injured came under the offending vehicle resulting in causing grievous injuries to his leg.
10. R1 & R2 abstained from the proceedings. They were proceeded against exparte. There is no crossexamination of the injured by R1 & R2. As such his testimony regarding the manner in which accident took place has remained unchallenged and I have no reason to disbelieve the same. MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 5 of 26
11. It has to be borne in mind that Motor Vehicles Act does not stipulate holding a trial for petition preferred under section 166 of the Act. Under Section 168 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal holds an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal as was held in State of Mysore v. S.S. Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR 943 by Hon'ble Apex Court.
12. In Bimla Devi and ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Claims Tribunals should not insist on strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner and that taking holistic view of the matter, evidence should be examined on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt.
13. The Judgment in Bimla Devi (supra) was relied on by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest judgments in Parmeswari v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir (2011) 3 SCC 646. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Appeal (Civil) 6 of 2001: Special MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 6 of 26 Leave Petition (Civil) 1431 of 2000 decided on 2nd July 2012.
14. In National Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors., 2008 II AD (DELHI) 269. Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that "The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Meena Variyal. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (1) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2001, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304A, IPC against the driver,
(iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 7 of 26 civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down."
15. In N.K. V. Brothers (P) Ltd Vs M. Karumal Ammal, AIR 1980 SC 1354 Hon'ble Apex Court observed :
" Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially, when truck and bus driver operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitar. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here and some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes".
16. Petitioner has placed on record certified copies of criminal case. Report under section 173 Cr. PC shows that R1 was prosecuted for having caused the said accident. Offending vehicle was seized from the site of accident. R1 has not stepped MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 8 of 26 into the witness box to explain why he was prosecuted by the investigating officer for offences punishable under section 279/338 IPC. Certified copy of MLC, dated 11.06.2007 of injured is on record.
In view of unchallenged testimony of PW1 and certified copies of criminal case it is held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE No.2 Qua quantum of compensation
17. Injured deposed that his leg was crushed under the offending vehicle. He was taken to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad, where his MLC bearing No. RB631/07 was prepared by the doctors and that keeping in view his serious condition he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital where he remained hospitalized from 11.06.2007 to 17.09.2007 vide Ex.PW1/1, 16.10.2007 to 07.11.2007 vide Ex.PW1/2, 05.03.2008 to 29.03.2008 vide Ex.PW1/3 and 21.01.2009 to 30.01.2009 vide Ex.PW1/4. Medical record of injured shows that he had suffered immensely. He was repeatedly hospitalized. His treatment MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 9 of 26 continued from the date of accident i.e 11.06.2007 till 19.09.2009 as per record. He says that he is still under treatment. As per record the injured remained under active treatment for about 2 years and 3 months. The period of hospitalisation alone comes to about 154 days whereas his treatment continued for more than 2 years. LOSS OF INCOME
18. Injured has deposed that he was working as labourer earning Rs. 5,000/ and he was not able to do any work after the accident. He stated that there is no proof of his earning of Rs. 5,000/ per month. In absence of any documentary evidence regarding income of injured minimum wages of unskilled have to be considered which were Rs. 3470/ on the date of accident.
19. In ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hari Singh & Ors. MAC APP No. 122/2011, it was urged by LRs of the deceased that she used to sell milk and milk products at her house and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month. It was contended by Ld. Counsel for LRs of the deceased that Claims Tribunal ought to have accepted the deceased's income at Rs.15,000/ per month. Since no documentary evidence with regard to MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 10 of 26 deceased's profession was produced, Claims Tribunal was held right in awarding loss of dependency on minimum wages.
20. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Maya Devi & Ors. MAC.APP.627/2011 there was no documentary evidence with regard to the employment of the deceased as a cook at M/s Aman Deep Dhaba or his salary at Rs.8,000/ per month. Dhaba was not registered with the Sales Tax/Vat Department. No register for payment of wages was maintained. No receipt regarding payment of any salary to the deceased was produced. In absence of any evidence regarding employment of the deceased with the said Dhaba or his salary at Rs.8,000/ per month, Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 27.08.2012 held that the only option left is to award loss of dependency on minimum wages.
21. Injured suffered immensely on account of his repeated hospitalization.
22. As per disability certificate bearing No. 494, dated 30.10.2010 of injured, prepared at Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Ex.PW2/A injured suffered 80% permanent disability.
Keeping the nature of injuries, repeated hospitalization and MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 11 of 26 period of treatment, it can be reasonably inferred that he must not have been able to any work for at least 18 months. As such he is granted Rs. 3470x18=62,460/ towards loss of income. Loss of earning capacity
23. Jitender Singh, HOD (Ortho) BSA Hospital was examined as PW2. He deposed that as per disability certificate, the injured has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 80% in relation to right lower limb.
24. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., 2011 (1) SCC 343, Supreme Court held that compensation on account of loss of earning capacity has to be granted in accordance with the nature of job of the victim of motor accident.
"11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 12 of 26 percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2010 (10) SCC 254 and Yadava Kumar v.
D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010 (10) SCC 341.
x x x x
14. 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 MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 13 of 26 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."
25. Learned counsel for R3 has contended that disability of injured may be taken as 40% (50% of 80%) in view of various judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court.
26. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sohanveer Singh & Ors. MAC.APP 615/2008, decided on 27.08.2012, the petitioner suffered 80% disability on account of amputation of left leg above knee and fracture on the right leg in a motor vehicle accident. Petitioner was working as a professional photographer and was earning Rs. 7,000/ per month. On loss of earning MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 14 of 26 capacity of the claimant Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that petitioner could carry out his work from the studio and engage another person whenever the work at a location outside is to be carried out. Accordingly loss of earning capacity was assessed at 40%.
27. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Poonam Arora & Ors. MAC.APP.833/2010, decided on 01.08.2012, permanent disability to the extent of 60% in respect of her right lower limb. On loss of earning capacity Hon'ble High Court observed that it would be very difficult to say how the injuries suffered by her would have an impact of earning capacity as injured was still a student going to school and accordingly assessed loss of earning capacity at 40%.
28. In Vidya Dhar Sharma v. Badri Prasad & Ors. MAC.APP. 919/2011, decided 03.12.2012, claimant suffered amputation of his right hand above elbow resulting in 80% permanent disability in respect of his right upper limb. Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that in absence of any proof of the exact nature of work performed by the petitioner loss of future earning capacity was assessed at 40% (50% of 80%). MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 15 of 26
29. Similarly in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Arun Kumar & Ors. MAC.APP.225/2010, decided on 23.11.2012, on account of amputation of right leg above knee, the Claimant suffered 85% permanent disability in respect of his right lower limb. Hon'ble Delhi High Court assessed future loss of earning capacity as 45% instead of 85% observing that he did not produce any evidence with regard to his employment.
30. In the instant case petitioner has claimed to be a labourer. There is no crossexamination on his occupation. Learned counsel for R3 crossexamined him only with respect to his income that he did not earn Rs. 5,000/ per month as claimed by him. His occupation was not challenged in his crossexamination whereas in the cases cited above there was no convincing evidence qua nature of work of the injured and the effect accident had on their earning capacity.
31. On account of injuries sustained and disability suffered movement of the injured will be significantly restricted and he will not be even able to sit on uneven surface or squat. Obviously he will not be able to do any labour work. The disability suffered will severely impair his ability to do manual MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 16 of 26 work. He sails in the same boat as injured in the following case.
32. In Nagarajappa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II(2011) ACC 308 (SC), decided on 11.04.2011, doctor had assessed permanent residual physical disability of upper limb at 68% and 2223% of whole body. Claimant was working as coolie for which he required use of both his hands. For computation of loss of future income due to disability. Tribunal took into consideration that disability of the whole body of the claimant had been assessed at 23%, however, his right hand was still free to work. Thus, it assessed disability at 20%. Hon'ble Apex Court assessed disability as 68% and not 20% and observed as under: "The appellant is working as a manual labourer, for which he requires the use of both his hands. The fact that the accident has left him with one useless hand will severely affect his ability to perform his work as a Coolie or any other manual work, and this has also been certified by the doctor. Thus, while awarding compensation it has to be kept in mind that the appellant is to do manual work for the rest of his life without full use of his left hand, and this is bound to affect the quality MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 17 of 26 of his work and also his ability to find work considering his disability. Hence, while computing loss of future income, disability should be taken to be 68% and not 20%, as was done by the Tribunal and the High Court. Our view is supported from the ratio in Raj Kumar (supra) and from the fact that the appellant is severely hampered and perhaps forever handicapped from performing his occupation as a Collie"
33. In the instant case the injured was also a labourer. His earning capacity undoubtedly is drastically impaired with the disability suffered. So in view of Nagarajappa (supra) his functional disability is assessed at 80%.
34. As per his identity card Ex.PW1/100, bearing No. UCNK0253385, issued by Election Commission of India, his year of birth is 1988. Accident occurred on 11.06.2007, so he was about 19 years at the time of accident.
35. In Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others 2013(6) SCALE 563, deceased was around 33 years of age at the time of accident. He was survived by his widow and minor children.
He was working as a clerk in a Government School. Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 8,96,500/. On MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 18 of 26 appeal Hon'ble High Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 10,17,000/. On further appeal to Hon'ble Apex Court total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 22,81,320/. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that compensation under section 168 has to be "just, fair and equitable" to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong as far as money can do.
36. Hon'ble Apex Court referred to Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2012(4) SCALE 559 in which it was observed that even in absence of any evidence as to future prospects and increase of 30% in the income has to be provided where the victim had fixed income or was a self employed person. Relevant extract of the order is as follows: "18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verm's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is selfemployed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 19 of 26 formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation."
37. However to make compensation just fair and equitable Hon'ble Apex Court observed:
11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the selfemployed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those selfemployed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 20 of 26 addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter".
As such petitioner is entitled to addition of 50% while computing the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
38. Following Rajesh (supra) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Maya Devi and Ors. MAC APP 260/2006 decided on 11th September, 2013 and in Rajpal & Ors v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. MAC APP 405/2013 decided on 17th September 2013 granted 50% towards future prospect. Thus loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. (3470/ +50% x12x18x80%)=Rs.8,99,424/ ATTENDANT CHARGES
39. With the nature of disability suffered by the petitioner, his frequent hospitalization and prolonged treatment he definitely needed an attended to carry out his day to day work for at least one year during his treatment. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in DTC v. Lalit AIR 1981 Delhi 558 held that victim is entitled to compensation even if no attendant is hired and some family MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 21 of 26 member renders gratuitous services.
40. In Gulam Nabi Bhat v. Mohd. Arman Ali & Ors. MAC.APP. 335/2009, decided on 07.08.2012, the appellant had become paraplegic and totally disabled. Hon'ble Delhi High Court assessed functional disability at 100% and regarding compensation towards attendant charges, it was observed as under:
"21. The Appellant examined PW6 Mustaq Ahmed Meer who deposed that he was working as an Attendant with the Appellant and was being paid '3,000/ per month. In the facts and circumstances, I would award a compensation towards Attendant charges @ '2,000/ per month which would come to '4,08,000/ (2000/x12x17) as against a sum of '1,50,000/ awarded by the Claims Tribunal."
Accordingly petitioner is granted attendant charges for 12 months of his inability to work at all during his treatment at Rs. 2,000/ p.m. which comes to Rs. (2,000 x 12) Rs. 24,000/. NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES
41. Having suffered 80% permanent disability, petitioner will not be able to enjoy usual amenities of life. Delhi High Court in Harmohinder Singh v. Mangal Prasad & Ors MAC APP 815/2010 vide its order dated 27.08.2012 observed: MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 22 of 26 "26. It is difficult to measure in terms of money the pain and suffering which is suffered by the claimant on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim of a motor accident. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the parts of the body where the injuries were sustained; surgeries (if any) underwent by the victim; confinement in the hospital and the duration of the treatment.
27. In case of Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 10 SCC 683, where a victim aged about 24 years suffered amputation of one leg above knee, a compensation of Rs. 1.5 lacs was awarded towards pain and suffering and another sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs was awarded towards loss of amenities in life and loss of marriage prospects.
42. Injured was hospitalized four times from the date of accident i.e 11.06.2007 to 30.01.2009. His right lower limb has been shortened. His movement at right knee and ankle has been permanently restricted. He cannot sit on uneven surface due to movement loss at ankle. He cannot sit by squatting due to MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 23 of 26 stiffness of knee and ankle throughout his life. He cannot do any kind of work in which full movement of knee and ankle are required.
In view of aforesaid, petitioner is granted Rs. 1.5 lacs towards pain and suffering and Rs. 1.5 lacs towards deprivation of amenities in life.
MEDICAL TREATMENT EXPENSES
43. There are medical bills in the sum of Rs. 38,040/ as per Ex.PW1/34 to Ex.PW1/99. There is no cross examination on this. As such said sum of Rs. 38,040/ is awarded towards treatment expenses.
44. The compensation awarded is tabulated below: Sl. No Compensation under various heads Amount awarded
1. Loss of income Rs. 62,460/ 2 Loss of Earning Capacity Rs. 8,99,424/
3. Attendant Charges Rs. 24,000/
4. Medical Treatment Rs. 38,040/
5. Pain and Suffering Rs. 1,50,000/
6. Deprivation of amenities in life and Rs. 1,50,000/ disfigurement
7. Conveyance Rs. 25,000/
8. Special diet Rs. 15,000/ MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 24 of 26 Total Rs. 13,63,924/ The over all compensation comes to Rs. 13,63,924/.
45. R3 is accordingly directed to deposit the above mentioned awarded amount within 30 days from today with this Tribunal with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till notice of deposit of award amount to be given by R3 to petitioner/ his counsel.
46. In view of the judgment in Susamma Thomas & Others (supra) for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the petitioner owing to his ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:
An amount of Rs. 1 lac be released to him out of awarded amount. Remaining amount with proportionate interest be kept in three FDRs for three years each.
47. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposit shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in his Saving Account.
48. The petitioner shall not have any facility of loan or advance on the FDR. However, in case of emergent need, he may approach this Tribunal for premature encashment of FDR. MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 25 of 26
49. The petition is accordingly disposed of. File be consigned to record room. Copy of order be given to parties for compliance.
Announced in the open Court Judge MACT today i.e. 01.02.2014 Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 1134/08 Jitender Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad 26 of 26