Delhi District Court
Anshu Sharma (I)(Petition) vs Sunder Singh (Oic) on 12 September, 2023
DLCT010061552018
Presented on : 05-05-2018
Registered on : 07-05-2018
Decided on : 12-09-2023
Duration : 05 Years 04
Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI PRESIDED
OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA.
MACT NO.383/18
ANSHU SHARMA
D/o Late Dal Chand Sharma,
R/o Village Khad Mohan Nagar,
Post Khaad Mohan Nagar,
District Bulandshar.
Present Add:-
Village Kherpur, Gurjar, Post Bisarkh,
District-Gautama Budh Nagar.
Also at
Mohalla Holiwala, Hiran Wala,
Hasanpur, Amroha, Uttar-Pradesh-244241. ......Petitioner.
MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 1/33
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13
13:24:24 +0530
VERSUS
1. SUNDER SINGH
S/o Sh. Khajan Singh
R/o H.No. B-37, Fatepur Beri, Delhi. (OWNER).
2.ASHRU KHAN
S/o Sh. Ishaak Khan,
R/o Village Bohri, Post Pahadi,
Distt. Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (DRIVER).
3.ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
CB08, Kashmere Gate, 1576, Church Road,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.(Insurer).
....Respondents.
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 01/11/2016
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident N.A. Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 2/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:24:31 +0530 from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident N.A. Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N.A. by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance N.A. Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 12/09/2023
15. Whether the claimant (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 24/01/2023 directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 3/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.09.13 13:24:36 +0530 claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 12/09/2023 passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the Village Khad Mohan Claimant(s). Nagar,Post Khaad Mohan Nagar, District Bulandshar..
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) Yes is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at Yes the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. This petition U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act was filed on 07.05.2018 seeking compensation in respect of the injuries MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 4/33 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:24:41 +0530 sustained by Ms. Anshu Sharma D/o Late Dal Chand Sharma (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner"). As per petition, on 01.11.2016 at about 02.22 A.M, petitioner was coming to her village from Goverdhan District Mathura by Car bearing registration no. DL- 9CW-5297 alongwith family members Sh. Dharamveer Sharma, Dal Chand Sharma and Aarti Sharma and when their car reached on Yamuna Expresssway near Minestone at 02.20 a.m, then a Truck bearing registration no. HR-55Y-2621 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") came from back side which driver was driving in a high speed and negligent manner and dashed the above car. Due to dash car got damaged and all passengers of the Car sustained multiple grievous injuries. After the accident, the petitioner was admitted in Kailash Hospital, Greater Noida. It is further stated that the accident occurred on the sole negligence of the driver of the above said Truck. An FIR no. 458/2016 PS Tappal UP U/s 279/337/338/304A/427 IPC was registered in respect of the above accident. As per petition, the petitioner 21 years old, was running a Coaching Centre and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Petitioner seeks compensation to the tune of Rs. 53 Lakhs in respect of the injuries suffered by her in the abovesaid accident. R-1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and R-3 is the insurer of the same. Notice of this petition was issued to all the respondents.
MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 5/33 Digitally signed byPANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:24:46 +0530
2. R-1 and R-2 were proceeded exparte vide order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
3. R-3/ Insurance Company filed a Written Statement wherein it denied the contents of petition. It is averred it is not liable to pay any compensation as at the time of accident, the R-1 was not holding a valid DL, permit and fitness. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself.
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 25/09/2019, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the petitioner Ms. Anshu Sharma suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 01.11.2016 at about 2.20 am involving Truck bearing registration No. HR-55Y-2621 driven by the Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No.3?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
EVIDENCE MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 6/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:24:51 +0530
5. The petitioner examined herself as PW-1 in support of her claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein she described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. She deposed that she sustained grievous injuries at the relevant time. She further deposed that at the relevant time, she was 21 years old and used to run a Coaching Centre and was earning Rs.15,000/- and due to injuries she has not been able to do her work till date due to the said accident as she has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 30%. Due to the permanent disability she cannot run,go speedily, drive any vehicle, able for government job, air jobs and her life is traches and life is hampered. She further deposed that she cannot study again because she cannot read because both Optic Nerve got damaged. She further deposed that her earning capacity is 100% damaged. She further deposed that in this condition her marriage will not be held and her future is in dark. She has relied upon the following documents viz:-
"Ex PW1/1 (OSR) is copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner;
Ex. PW1/2 (Colly) are the certified copies of criminal record;
Ex. PW1/3 (Colly) is the medical bills; Mark A is the bill summary;
Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) is the copy of disability certificate''.MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 7/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.09.13 13:24:55 +0530 5.1 She was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In her cross-examination, she deposed that on the fateful day, they were coming from Mathura Vrindavan. She further deposed that they started approximately one hour prior to the time of accident.
She further deposed that her father was sitting on front passenger seat and her chacha Dharamveer was driving the Car. She denied the suggestion that her father did not fasten the seat belt. She denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to negligence of her uncle. She denied the suggestion that Car in which she was travelling was over crowded. She further deposed that she has not placed on record any document regarding her earning of Rs. 15,000/- per month from coaching work. She denied the suggestion that she was not earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. She further deposed that she was awake at the time of accident. She further deposed that the area had ample light and she was sitting in the rear of the car.
5.2 Petitioner also examined Dr.Priyanka Prasad W/o Dr. Amber Amar Bhayana, Senior Resident of Unit 5, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS, New, Delhi as PW
2. She relied upon the copy of authority letter vide Ex. PW2/1. She proved visual disability certificate of petitioner Anshu Sharma vide Ex. PW2/2. She was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for R3/ Insurance Company. In her crossexamination she deposed that as per the record of the hospital the patient presented to them with MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 8/33 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:25:00 +0530 complaint of diminution of vision of left eye for past one year following the history of RTA one year back. She further deposed that the left eye of the patient namely Anshu Sharma had no light perception or no vision in her left eye and also the right eye has moderate amount of vision loss amounting to 6/18 on vision testing and bilateral optics nerve show evidence of atrophy/ damage. She further deposed that patient presented on 16.06.2017 in OPD under Unit III and was referred to Neuroopthalmology clinic on 23.07.2017 and 28.07.2017. She proved the copy of detail of patient's appointment vide Ex.PW2/3 and the copy of clinic examination sheet vide Ex. PW2/4. She further deposed that the visual disability certificate issued on 10.04.2018 by Dr. Harathy S, Sr. Resident and Dr. Rohit Saxena Professor Unit 5. She further deposed that the visual disability certificate has been signed by three doctors including medical superintendent. She further deposed that she is deposing on the basis of the record maintained by the hospital for the treatment of the patient Anshu Sharma.
5.3 Petitioner also examined Sh. Mohd. Basim S/o Mehmood Baig, working as Assistant Manager, in Medical Record Department, in Kailash Hospital, Greater Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, UP as PW3. PW3 proved discharge summary vide Ex. PW3/1 (Colly), the copy of MLC Vide Ex.PW3/2, the assessment Sheet vide Ex.PW3/3, final bill vide Ex.PW3/4 and and the authority MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 9/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.09.13 13:25:09 +0530 letter alongwith ID Card vide Ex.PW4/5. He was cross examined only by R3/ Insurance Company. In his crossexamination he deposed that he is working as Assistant Manager in the Department of Medical Record. He further deposed that he is deposing on the basis of medical records maintained by the hospital. He further deposed that the medical bill to the tune of Rs. 5,28,500/ has been prepared by the billing department. He denied the suggestion that the final bill of Rs. 5,28,500/ is not genuine and has not been issued by their hospital to the patient Anshu Sharma.
6. The Respondents did not lead any evidence in their defence.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties.
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings is as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 "Whether the petitioner Ms. Anshu Sharma suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 01.11.2016 at about 2.20 am involving Truck bearing registration No. HR-55Y-2621 driven by the Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, owned by the MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 10/33 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:25:15 +0530 Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No.3?OPP''
9. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. As already discussed above, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1 in order to prove the factual averments regarding the occurrence of accident. PW-1 has clearly and categorically stated that at the relevant date, time and place, was coming to her village from Goverdhan District Mathura by Car bearing registration no. DL-
MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 11/33 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:25:19 +0530 9CW-5297 alongwith family members Sh. Dharamveer Sharma, Dalchand Sharma and Aarti Sharma and when their car reached on Yamuna Expresssway near Minestone at 02.20 a.m, then a Truck bearing registration no. HR-55Y-2621 came from back side which driver was driving in high speed and negligent manner and dashed the above car. Due to dash car got damaged and all passengers of the Car sustained multiple grievous injuries. After the accident, the petitioner was admitted in Kailash Hospital, Greater Noida. It is further stated that the accident occurred on the sole negligence of the driver of the above said Truck. She was 21 years old, was running a Coaching Centre and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. She further stated that in the aforementioned accident she suffered permanent disability 30% permanent visual disability and she has became unemployable permanently. Petitioner claims compensation on account of special pecuniary damage relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicine, transportation, diet, loss of earning during the period she was injured, loss of earning during the period of treatment, loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, non-pecuniary damages, damages for pain suffering and trauma, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. PW-1 was subjected to cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. However, she remained consistent and seems to have withstood the test of cross-examination. She has declined all the suggestions of respondents imputing the occurrence of accident due to negligence of driver of the car. There is nothing on record which betrays any falsity or untruth in the oral testimony of PW-1. As such, MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 12/33 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:25:24 +0530 it could be safely held that the oral testimony of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy.
11. The very fact that R-1 has already been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338/304A/427 IPC in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW1 and the case of petitioner on this issue. The certified copies of FIR, Chargesheet, Site plan, Mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle, MLC, Seizure Memos and Arrest Memo of R-1 also corroborate the testimony of PW1.
12. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time, R-1 was driving the offending vehicle a in rash and negligent manner in a high speed while the petitioner was travelling in the Car at the relevant time. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 13/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.09.13 13:25:30 +0530 part of the petitioner, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross negligence and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
14. In view of the disability certificate, medical treatment documents placed on record by the petitioner, no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries on her person on account of negligence and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
16. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, but the MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 14/33 Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA by PANKAJ SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:25:36 +0530 computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
17. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. Pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary damages. The "pecuniary damages" or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The "non- pecuniary" or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non-pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 15/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.09.13 13:25:41 +0530 accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Further, in case of permanent disability, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
18. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which can be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
19. The petitioner has placed on judicial file the original medical bills as Ex. PW1/3(colly). As per the said documents, MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 16/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.09.13 13:25:47 +0530 petitioner has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.9,78,926/-. In the absence of any contest to the said documents (placed on record by the petitioner), the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 9,78,926/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
20. As per medical documents, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 30% permanent visual disability. As per disability certificate no. 388 dated 10.04.2018 Ex. PW2/2 issued by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, A.I.I.M.S. Ansari, Nagar, Delhi, petitioner is a case of RE '' Traumatic Oplic Neuropathy'' and was found to have sustained 30% permanent visual disability which is not likely to improve. Further, the accident took place on 01.11.2016 and till date the condition of the petitioner has not improved even little. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which she actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate her for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by her etc., an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is being awarded to her towards pain and sufferings during the said period of her treatment and immobility. Thus, she is awarded a total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- under this head.
MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 17/33Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.09.13 13:25:53 +0530
(iii) Loss of actual earnings
21. In her affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims that she used to run a Coaching Centre and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from that vocation. The petitioner is a Graduate girl as such there is no doubt over her claim that she was giving coaching to children at the relevant time and was earning the stated amount. The MLC Ex. PW3/2 reflects that the petitioner sustained a grievous injuries which resulted into 30% permanent visual disability. The above documents are sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to the effect that she was unable to resume her work since the date of accident. It is pertinent to note that due to damage of optical nerve, the loss of eye vision of left eye and moderate loss of vision of right eye her capability and capacity to pursue her vocation has been greatly hit as a teacher is required to read a lot for giving coaching. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner could not have worked for about 06 months due to the injuries as her treatment was continuing. As per relevant notification, the Minimum Wages admissible to a Graduate Person as on 01.11.2016 in Delhi were Rs.12,662/- as petitioner is Graduate. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 75,972/- ( rounded off) (Rs.12,662/- X 6). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 18/33 Digitally signed byPANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:25:57 +0530
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
22. Petitioner claimed in her affidavit Ex. PW1/A that she was providing education to the children through her Coaching Centre and the injuries suffered by her would impact upon her vocation to a greater extent as she is required to read a lot to teach the students. Due to 30% permanent visual disability in her eyes wherein one of eye has been completely impaired and another eye has been damaged to the extent of 10% and Optic Nerve Damaged, the same is required to be seen in realistically for reckoning for her functional disability. The aforesaid injuries has diminished her career prospects as she is unable to read properly and resultantly the coaching by her has been stopped. Therefore, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that her functional disability is to be assessed 100% as she has become incapable of teaching due to the aforesaid accident. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs.12,662/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, we may look into the photocopy of petitioner's Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW1/1, as per which documents, the date of birth of petitioner is 30.07.1995. Going by the same, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident i.e. 01.11.2016 was 21 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 19/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.09.13 13:26:02 +0530 judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability. The petitioner is also entitled to 40% future prospects as per the observations made by a Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., MANU/SC/0545/2020 [please see para 7 (b)]. Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to her above injury and permanent disability comes to Rs.38,28,989/- (rounded off) (Rs. 12,662/- X 100/100 X 140/100 X 12 X 18) and the same is awarded to him as compensation under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
23. Considering the fact that the petitioner has no light perception or no vision in her left eye and also the right eye has moderate amount of vision loss amounting to 6/18 on vision testing and bilateral optics nerve show evidence of atrophy/ damage, therefore, in view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent visual disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each under these heads.
MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 20/33 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:26:07 +0530
(vi) Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement
24. Considering the fact that the petitioner has no light perception or no vision in her left eye and also the right eye has moderate amount of vision loss amounting to 6/18 on vision testing and bilateral optics nerve show evidence of atrophy/ damage, therefore, in view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent visual disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each under these heads.
(vii) Loss of Marriage Prospects
25. Admittedly, petitioner had to undergo a lot of trauma and pain on account of the above accident She also suffered a permanent visual disability to the extent of 30%. This Tribunal could not turn a blind eye to the fact that the above disability is very much likely to affect the marriage prospects of the petitioner, given the existing social norms of our society at large. Further, petitioner cannot walk as she requires the help of other person while moving from one place to other owing to visual disability. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries suffered by her which had impacted her future marriage prospects to a greater extent, petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- under this head as well.
MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 21/33 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:26:13 +0530 Issue No.3/Relief
26. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs. 59,33,887 /- (Rs. Fifty Nine Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Seven Only) (Rs.9,78,926/- + Rs. 2,00,000/- + Rs.75,972/- + Rs.38,28,979/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 1,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs. 5,00,000/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 07.05.2018. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
27. On 12/09/2023, statement of petitioner qua financial needs and requirements was recorded in terms of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 32 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. As per his statement, her household expenditure is Rs.30,000/- per month. Photocopy of the passbook of the bank account of the petitioner maintained with Punjab National Bank, Branch Surajpur, Greater Noida, UP was also placed on record at that time. Photocopies of Aadhar Card and PAN Card were also placed on record by the injured, apart from two coloured photographs of the petitioner.
28. Out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 67,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Sevent Lakhs Only) is directed to be kept with State MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 22/33 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:26:19 +0530 Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 268 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 268 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims Bank Account bearing No. 1815100100012668 IFSC Code - PUNBO181510 maintained with Punjab National Bank, Branch Surajpur, Greater Noida, UP (PAN No.HYQPS0122E) on monthly basis. The remaining amount of Rs.17,65,679/ (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Nine Only) is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner.
29. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 23/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.09.13 13:26:27 +0530 System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre- mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
30. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the offending vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3/ Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-2 in respect of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioner/ injured and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 8% per annum till the deposit MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 24/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:26:32 +0530 of the compensation as awarded, failing which he shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
31. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
32. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
33. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 25/33 Digitally signed byPANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:26:38 +0530 File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 12.10.2023.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open court PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA on this 12.09.2023 SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:26:44 +0530 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 26/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2023.09.13 13:26:49 +0530 FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 01-11-2016
2. Name of the injured : Anshu Sharma
3. Age of the injured : 21 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Coaching Centre
5. Income of the injured : Rs. 12,662/- as per minimum wages of a Graduate Person prevailing at the relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by injured : Different Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : Different Periods
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : YES
10. Computation of Compensation MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 27/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.09.13 13:26:55 +0530 S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss (I) Expenditure on treatment Rs.9,78,926/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 50,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL (vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL (vii) Loss of Income Rs.75,972/- MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 28/33 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:27:00 +0530 (viii) Any other loss which may NIL require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life 12. Non-Pecuniary Loss: (i) Compensation for mental NIL and physical shock (ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000/- (iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/- (iv) Disfiguration Rs.1,00,000/- (v) Loss of marriage prospects Rs.5,00,000/- MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 29/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:27:06 +0530 (vi) Loss of earning, N.A. inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability 30% permanent visual assessed and nature of disability disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A expectation of life span on account of disability MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 30/33 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:27:13 +0530 100%
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs. 38,28,989/-
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.59,33,887/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 8% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.25,31,792/-(rounded date of award off)
17. Total amount including Rs.84,65,679/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs.17,65,679/-
MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 31/33 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.09.13 13:27:19 +0530
19. Award amount kept in Rs.67,00,000/-
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant(s).
21. Next date for compliance of 12.10.2023 the award.
MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 32/33 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:27:24 +0530 CONCLUSION
1. As per award dated 12.09.2023.
2. A separate file is ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 12.10.2023.
Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2023.09.13 13:27:30 +0530 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/12.09.2023 MACT No. 383/18 Anshu Sharma Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors. Page No. 33/33 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.13 13:27:35 +0530