Delhi District Court
Arun (Dar) vs Mahir (309/18 Jp) on 5 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.1013/2018
FIR No. 309/2018
PS : Jaitpur
U/s 279/338 IPC, 146/196 MV Act
CNR NO. DLSE01 009099-2018
Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr.
Arun Kumar
S/o Sh. Rajbir
R/o Village Seharpur
PS BB Nagar, Distt. Bulandshahar, UP
..Claimants
Versus
1. Mohd. Mahir
S/o SH. Akhtar Hussain
R/o E-382, Block E, Jaitpur Extension
Part-II, New Delhi.
.....driver/ respondent No. 1
2. Murari S/o Sohan R/o Vill. Bhiduki Teh. Hodal Distt. Palwal, Haryana.
.....owner/ respondent No. 2 ...Respondent Date of accident : 15.06.2018 Date of filing of DAR : 01.11.2018 Date of Decision : 05.12.2023 MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 1/22 ® AWARD
1. In this case, a Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as DAR) was filed by police official concerned and in terms of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, same is treated as Claim Petition under Section 166 (1) read with Section 166 (4) MV Act. It pertains to alleged accident of injured Arun Kumar (hereinafter referred as claimant), by vehicle bearing (Car) Reg. No. HR 30G 6515 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle), driven by Mohd. Mahir (hereinafter referred as R-1), owned by Murari, (hereinafter referred as R-2).
2. Preliminary information regarding accident in question was received at PS Jaitpur vide DD no. 14A on 15.06.2018, upon receipt of which, concerned police official went to spot of accident i.e. Pusta Road, near Makki Masjid, JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi where they found an I-10 car bearing Reg. No. HR 30G 6515 and a motorcycle UP15AH 9535 in accidental condition. The came to know that rider of motorcyclist got injured and removed to hospital by PCR. They found driver of offending car at the spot. Later on, on receipt of DD no.15A regarding MLC, police officials reached AIIMS Trauma center and collected MLC of injured. Statement of injured was recorded in Police Station wherein he narrated that he along with his friend were riding on motorcycle bearing Reg.No. UP 15AH 9535 (red colour Apache) which was hit by speeding car bearing Reg. No. HR 30G 6515 from right side being driven in rash and negligent manner near Pushta Road, Makki Masjid. They found that the offending vehicle was not insured on the date of accident. FIR was registered on the basis MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 2/22 ® of statement of injured person. Injured was taken to hospital in PCR Van. During course of investigation, it was revealed that the offending vehicle was without valid and effective Insurance Policy on the date of accident. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 279/338 IPC & 146/196 MV Act against driver before concerned criminal court while DAR was filed by Investigating Officer before this Tribunal.
3. On the very first date of hearing, R-1/ driver cum de facto owner appeared. Since offending vehicle was not insured, R-1 was directed to show cause as to why he should not be directed to furnish Rs. 2 lakhs as security deposit to satisfy the award. Respondent reflected his willingness to settle the matter and at request, matter was sent to Mediation Center for 12.11.2018. However, no settlement took place in Mediation Center. R-1 neither replied to show cause notice nor filed reply to DAR. Hence their right to file reply was closed vide order dated 15.05.2019.
4. Following issues were framed vide order dated 15.05.2019:
1. Whether the injured Arun Kumar suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 15.06.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR 30G 6515 being driven by R-1 and owned by R-2? OPP
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
5. Petitioner/injured stepped in the witness box as PW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A). He relied upon documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5 including his ID proof, MLC, driving license, discharge summary and DAR. R-1 & 2 were not present to cross-examine the witness. Any other MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 3/22 ® witness was not produced on behalf of the claimant, as such, PE was closed vide order dated 22.08.2023.
6. Despite order, respondent had failed to deposit the security amount as such RE stands closed on behalf of R-1 & 2 vide order dated 22.08.2023.
7. Final arguments in detail were addressed in the present case by learned counsel for the claimant.
8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue-wise findings are as under:-ISSUE NO. 1
Whether the injured Arun Kumar suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 15.06.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR 30G 6515 being driven by R-1 and owned by R-2? OPP
9. What is required to be ascertained is whether rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle was responsible for sustaining injury by injured.
10. 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].
11. Further, in the present case, police after investigation had MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 4/22 ® filed charge-sheet against respondent no.1 under Section 279, 338 of IPC which is also suggestive of negligence of respondent in causing the accident. Including in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court that completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
12. 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.
13 In the present case also, driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident.
14. On perusal of examination-in-chief by way of affidavit of PW-1, it is noted that he deposed on the line of original complaint on the basis of which FIR in question was registered regarding mode and manner in which accident took place. He further deposed that accident took place due to rash and negligent driver of offending vehicle driven by R-1 at the time of accident.
15. Further, this witness was not cross examined as such, his evidence remained unrebutted and this Tribunal has no reason to disbelieve the same.
16. As such, in view of the evidence proved on record and charge-sheet against R1 and that R-1 did not appear in the witness box to deny the rash and negligence on the part of driver, nothing remains in contention any further. Issue No.1 is decided MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 5/22 ® accordingly, in favour of the petitioner.ISSUE NO. 2
Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP
17. Sec. 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 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 MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 6/22 ® Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct.
18. 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 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)
19. 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.]
20. 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 MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 7/22 ® 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 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.. ..."
21. 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."
MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 8/22 ®
22. Certain principles for delineating just compensation were 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, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 9/22 ® 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 suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant.
23. The abovesaid principles have been placed reliance upon MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 10/22 ® in a recent judgment reported as Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr., arising out of SLP (Civil) no. 19277 of 2018 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as decided on 16.11.2022.
24. 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.
25. We are not concerned with assessment regarding loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability in this case, as petitioner did not suffer any permanent disability.
26. PW-1/ injured deposed that he was engaged in farming and also worked as part time driver and earning about Rs. 15,000/- per month in Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh at the time of accident. To support affirmation, he relied upon his Driving License as Ex.PW1/2 as per which he was authorised to drive transport vehicle which suggests that he was skilled to carry job of driver. However, he has not filed any direct document to support his income of Rs. 15,000/- per month whatever he claimed. Under these circumstances, having regard to the material on record, income of the deceased is presumed to be minimum wages for skilled worker at the time of accident which was Rs. 9,457/- per month in State of Uttar Pradesh. Accordingly, it is held that MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 11/22 ® deceased was earning Rs. 9,457/- per month at the time of accident.
27. He further deposed in his affidavit that due to accident, he was unfit for at least 8 months to resume his work. Perusal of his Discharge Summary, it is noted that he was discharged on the same date of accident. Further, he has filed only 3 medical bills. Last one was of September 2018. After going through his medical documents and considering the nature of injury, loss of income is assessed for at least 3 months.
28. In this background of material and evidence on record, in the present case 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) Actual Expenditure on treatment : Rs. 1,600/-
As per medical bills Ex. PW-1/2(colly).
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : The Rs. 10,000/- petitioner has not filed any bill for conveyance. The nature of injuries are grievous. Therefore, having regard to the distance between place of residence and concerned hospital and the period of treatment, by guess work, compensation can be awarded for conveyance.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : There Rs.10,000/- is no prescription for special diet. The nature of injuries are grievous. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injury and the treatment, by guess work, compensation can be awarded for special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Even Rs.10,000/- in the absence of documentary proof, compensation for attendant's charges is to MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 12/22 ® be given even if services were rendered by family members.
(v) Loss of income : As such, taking his income @ Rs.9,457/-, compensation Rs.28,371/- towards loss of income is Rs.9,457/- x 3 = Rs.
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if Not Applicable applicable) :
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : Not applicable
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and Rs.20,000/-
physical shock : As the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries, he would have undergone 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/- petitioner has suffered grievous injuries.
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : NA
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed NA and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NA expectation of life span on account of disability :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning NA capacity in relation to disability: In this case no permanent disability is proved on record.
(iv) Loss of future Income: NA
MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 13/22 ®
Total Compensation Rs. 1,09,971/-
Deduction, if any NA
Interest: Simple interest
@9% p.a. from
the date of
filing of DAR
till actual
realization of
Award amount/
compensation.
29. 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, MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 14/22 ® 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 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 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."
30. 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 MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 15/22 ® case.
31. The total compensation payable to the claimant would be Rs. 1,09,971/-with simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization.
Liability :-
32. In this case, offending vehicle was not insured which is a matter of record. Further as per material on record, R-1 was the driver of the offending vehicle and R-2 is the registered owner of the vehicle. Driver drove vehicle without insurance. Further R-1 & 2 failed to deposit the security amount and did not file any reply to DAR. Their right to contest the present case was also closed and that is why they did not lead any evidence in their RE. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, entire liability falls on their shoulder and both respondent no.1/ driver & 2/ Reg. owner are held to be liable to pay jointly and severely the compensation and award amount in question to the claimant as held above.
33. 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. Respondent side shall also furnish TDS certificate, if any to the petitioner.
MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 16/22 ® MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
34. 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 Annunity 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:-
35. 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 to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
36. 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 MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 17/22 ® 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 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 MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 18/22 ® 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 semiliterate 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 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, MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 19/22 ® 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....."
37. In this background of legal position, it may be noted that in present case, claimant 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 already sustained that is to reimburse the same in the same manner in which he would have otherwise earned.
MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 20/22 ®
38. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, whole of Award amount is released to the petitioner/injured, alongwith simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization, 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 15.06.2018 2 Name of injured Arun Kumar 3 Age of the injured 35 years 4 Occupation of the Not proved injured 5 Income of the injured Rs. 9,457/- per month for an skilled workman in Uttar Pradesh at the time of accident 6 Nature injury Grievous 7 Medical treatment AIIMS Trauma Center.
taken by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization 9 Whether any NA MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 21/22 ® permanent disability?
39. 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 concerned.
Digitally signed40. Put up on 05.01.2024 for filing of bank details of petitioner by SHELLY and for compliance. SHELLY ARORA Date:
(Pronounced in the ARORA 2023.12.05 15:25:08 open court on 05.12.2023) +0530 (Shelly Arora) PO-MACT-01 (South-East) Saket Court/ New Delhi 05.12.2023 MACT No. 1013/2018 Arun Kumar Vs. Mohd. Mahir & Anr. Page No. 22/22 ®