Delhi District Court
Anik Prasad vs Lokender Singh on 17 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANIK PRASAD VS. LOKENDER SINGH & ORS.
DAR NO. 286/19
CNR No. DLND01-007713/2019
Sh. Anik Prasad
S/o Sh. Kameshwer,
R/o H.No. J-707A, Rajiv Ratan Awas,
Village Baprola, New Delhi-110043.
(Through his son Sh. Babloo Kumar)
........Claimant/Injured
Versus
1. Sh. Lokender Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar,
R/o Village Mohammadpur Lala (4),
PS Kanker Khera, Meerut, U.P.
2. Sh. Ram Kumar Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Ram Nath Singh,
R/o Village Mohammadpur Lala (4),
PS Kanker Khera, Meerut, U.P.
3. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400025.
...........Respondents
DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 1 of 26
Date of filing of DAR : 29.04.2019 Date of framing of issues : 29.08.2019 Date of concluding arguments : 17.10.2023 Date of decision : 17.10.2023 AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) for compensation relates to grievous injuries and permanent disability suffered by the claimant in a road accident that took place on 29.12.2018 at about 9 am, at BHS Marg, Sanjay Jheel, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi, regarding which an FIR bearing No.211/18, under Sections 279/338 IPC was registered at PS Sarojini Nagar. The offending vehicle involved in this case is a Royal Enfield Bullet bearing registration No. UP-15CB-6720, which at the time of accident was being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No. 3.
2. Succinctly put, facts of the case as per DAR are that on the aforesaid date, time and place of accident, the claimant was on service road at Primary School, BHS Marg on the Rehdi. All of a sudden, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP-15CB- 6720, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner, had hit the rehdi from the front due to which he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. It is further stated that the claimant was removed to AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi where his MLC was prepared.
DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 2 of 263. R-1 has filed his written statement to the DAR wherein it is stated that the accident took place due to negligence of claimant as the claimant himself suddenly came in a wrong direction of the road. It is further stated that the claimant has planted a fake eye witness as in his initial statement, neither the petitioner had stated anything about any alleged eye witness nor any such eye witness informed to the police about the accident.
4. R-2 has filed his written statement to the DAR wherein he has stated similar facts as mentioned in the written statement of R-1.
5. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company has filed its legal offer for a sum of Rs. 53,896/-, for settlement which was not acceptable to the claimant.
6. On 29.08.2019, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal as:-
1. Whether the injured Anik sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 29.12.2018 at about 9 AM, BHS Marg, Sanjay Jheel, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. UP-15CB-6720 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 3 of 26
7. The Tribunal heard arguments advanced by Sh. Anuj Jain, Ld. Counsel for claimant and Sh. Sachit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2 and Ms. Manu Kushwaha, Ld. Counsel for R3/Insurance Company. The case record has also been perused along with written submissions filed on behalf of claimant. The finding on the aforesaid issues is reproduced in succeeding paragraphs hereinafter.
1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 12.09.2017 at about 08.40 AM, Near NHPC Chowk, PS Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad, Haryana caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. UP- 81BT-8385 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3? OPP.
8. The onus to prove this issue was upon the claimant. In order to prove negligence of respondent No. 1, the claimant has examined an eye witness Sh. Bharat Prasad as PW4 who deposed that on 22.12.2018, at around 08.45 pm, he along with his grand child was roaming and coming from Sanjay Park. When he reached Brigadier Hoshiar Singh Marg, Near Sarvodaya School, he saw an accident between rehdi rickshaw and motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-15CB-6720. He further deposed that the motorcycle had hit the rickshaw from behind and both persons had fallen down. He further deposed that since he used to sell fruits on rehdi rickshaw, he informed other rehdi wala namely Raj Dev who informed that it must have been Anik Prasad who got injured. He DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 4 of 26 further deposed that the police had recorded his statement and the print out of the same is Ex. PW4/A. No effective cross examination regarding negligence has been led on behalf of respondents.
9. The claimant has further examined Sh. Rajdev Prasad as PW5 who has brought the copy of complaint dated 22.01.2019 given to SHO PS Sarojini Nagar and the same is Ex. PW5/A. During cross examination, he deposed that he was not eye witness to the accident. He was informed on his phone by one Bharat Prasad. He further deposed that he had received the telephonic call within half an hour of the accident. He further deposed that before filing the complaint, he had met the police officials at the hospital.
10. PW3 ASI Rajesh Kumar has placed on record computer generated copy of record pertaining to complaint dated 22.01.2019 filed by Rajdev Prasad and statement of complainant Rajdev Prasad dated 03.03.2022 which are Ex. PW3/A (colly). He has also filed his reply dated 04.03.2022 and the same is Ex. PW3/B.
11. Perusal of chargesheet reveals that PW-4 Sh. Bharat Prasad was cited as an eye witness of the accident, hence his presence at the spot is not doubtful and his testimony inspires confidence of the Tribunal.
12. Further, during the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has argued that the Insurance Company had already filed legal offer in the present matter and DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 5 of 26 there is no statutory defence available to the Insurance Company.
13. Moreover, it has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 wherein it has been observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
14. Further, respondent no. 1 has examined himself as R1W1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/1 and admitted that the accident took place near the school, then some unknown person called the police and informed about the accident and thereafter the injured was taken by the police to the hospital. He further admitted that the accident took place on the main road where there is a divider and his vehicle had hit the Thela of victim from the front side. He further deposed that the claimant came from the wrong side at the time of accident. However, there is no specification of the same in the site plan filed by the IO and no claimant's witness has stated that the claimant was coming from wrong side. Therefore, without any record for the same, it cannot be DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 6 of 26 said that there was contributory negligence on the part of claimant by coming from wrong side.
15. 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 on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in case titled as Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants and the claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
16. In view of foregoing discussion, it is held that oral evidence led on record by the claimant on this issue is duly substantiated by the documentary evidence, i.e. chargesheet and thus, it stands proved on preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. UP-15CB-6720, which was being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No.3 at the relevant time of accident. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 7 of 26 ISSUE No. 2Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
17. As the issue No.1 has been proved in favour of the claimant, he has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered by him in the accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
18. In terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the compensation which is to be awarded by this Tribunal is required to be 'just'. In injury cases, a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensation i.e. pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary damages. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, has laid down heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases as:-
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 8 of 26
(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).
19. Having considered the ratio of aforesaid judgment, the compensation payable to claimant is assessed hereinafter under the following heads as:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
20. Sh. Babloo Kumar, son of claimant has stepped into the witness box as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He has placed on record MLC of petitioner as Ex. PW1/4, as per which the claimant had suffered grievous injury in the accident. He has also tendered on record three discharge summaries of claimant as Ex. PW1/6, Ex. PW1/8 and Ex. PW1/10. As per discharge summary Ex. PW1/6, the claimant was admitted in JPNA Trauma Centre on 29.12.2018 and discharged on 13.01.2019 and was diagnosed with right fronto temporoparietal SDH with mass effect and midline shift and had undergone right frontotemporoparietal decompressive craniotomy. Further, as per discharge summary Ex. PW1/8, the claimant was admitted in the DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 9 of 26 said hospital on 07.03.2019 and was discharged on 08.03.2019 and as per discharge summary Ex. PW1/10, the claimant again admitted on 07.07.2019 and discharged on 08.07.2019 and was diagnosed with F/U/C of right FTP decompressive craniectomy with calvarial defect and had undergone autologous cranioplasty.
21. In order to prove the same, the petitioner has examined on record Sh. Aditya Swaroop, Medical Record Technician, JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi as PW2 who has placed on record original medial treatment record of petitioner as Ex. PW2/A (colly), Ex. PW2/B (colly) and Ex. PW2/C (colly) and MLC of petitioner as Ex. PW1/4 (OSR).
22. PW1 has tendered on record medical bills of claimant as Ex. PW1/12 (colly) which are totalling to a sum of Rs. 45,982/-.
23. Needless to say, the respondent have not led any evidence to show that the said bills and payment receipts do not relate to the injuries suffered by the claimant in the aforesaid accident. Thus, the testimony of PW-1 that the aforesaid amount was spent towards medical expenses of claimant remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. In the absence of any plausible evidence produced by respondent on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 that aforesaid amount was spent towards medical expenses of claimant. Hence, the claimant is held entitled to Rs. 45,982/- towards his medical expenses.
DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 10 of 26(ii) Loss of actual earnings
24. PW1 in his affidavit has claimed that his father used to work as Rehdi puller for carriage in/near to the area of Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- per month. During cross examination, he admitted that he has not placed on record any document in order to substantiate his above claim.
25. Since the profession and income of the claimant has not been established on record, the minimum wages of unskilled person is taken into account as per rates prevalent in Delhi, which was Rs. 14,000/- at the relevant time of accident.
26. Keeping in view the duration of treatment of the claimant as well as testimony of PW1, this tribunal feels it just and reasonable to compensate him for loss of earning equivalent to a period of 6 months. Therefore, under this head, he is being awarded an amount of Rs.84,000/- (Rs.14,000/- X 6 months).
(iii) Loss of future earnings due to disability
27. As per disability certificate issued by Dr. RML Hospital as Ex. PW1/11, the claimant was examined there and after his examination, the doctors have opined that the claimant is a case of post severe head injury sequlae with operated right FTP Ac. SDH with tracheotomy and Ryle's tube feeding and urine catheter and totally dependent for all his day today activities and his permanent physical impairment is 90% which is unlikely to improve.
DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 11 of 2628. The law with regard to grant of compensation due to permanent disability and determination of functional disability etc. was well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein it has been held as under :-
"4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`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 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. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 12 of 26 spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 13 of 26 by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may............."
29. Considering the legal position already discussed as well as considering the fact that the claimant has sustained 90% permanent disability, which is unlikely to improve and further that the claimant used to sell fruits by profession, it is in the fitness of things to consider functional disability of the claimant as 100%.
30. To apply the multiplier, it is necessary to ascertain the age of the claimant. In this regard, PW1 has tendered on record copy of Aadhar card of claimant as Ex. PW1/3 in which the year of birth of claimant is mentioned as 1961. Hence, going by these documents, the age of the claimant as on 29.12.2018 i.e. date of accident was around 58 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 Apex Court in a judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 dated 31.10.2017, the nearest multiplier of '9' is applicable for calculating the loss of DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 14 of 26 future earnings of the claimant arising out of above disability.
31. Further, the claimant is also held entitled to 10% future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra). Thus, the loss of future earnings caused to the claimant due to his permanent disability comes to Rs.16,63,200/- (Rs.14,000/- X 12 X 100/100 X 9 X 110/100).
(iv) Mental and Physical Shock, Pain and Sufferings & Loss of Amenities.
32. As stated above, the claimant had suffered grievous injuries and disability in the accident. Though, it is not possible to exactly compensate his for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he had actually suffered because of the above injuries and disability, but an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each is being awarded to him towards mental and physical shock & for pain and sufferings. Further, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is also awarded to him towards the loss of amenities suffered by him during the said period of his treatment. Thus, he is awarded total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- under this head.
DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 15 of 26(v) Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges
33. PW2 has tendered on record conveyance bills of petitioner as Ex. PW1/13 (colly) which are totalling to a sum of Rs. 8,041/-. He has also filed the chart showing the amount spent towards special diet without any bills or receipts. Still this Tribunal can very well take note of the requirement of conveyance for claimant for frequently visiting the hospital and doctors in connection with his treatment and special diet for his early recovery from the injuries suffered because of the accident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, an amount of Rs.50,000/- each is being awarded to the claimant towards conveyance and special diet for the treatment period as well as for future as the claimant suffered 90% disability.
34. As per disability certificate, the claimant is totally dependent for all his day to day activities. The amount of Rs. 8,64,000/- has been claimed under the head of attendant charges in the written submissions filed on behalf of claimant as son of claimant left the job to take care of the claimant.
35. Keeping in view the disability certificate of claimant filed on record, the claimant would have required assistance of some family member/attendant for doing his daily routine work, therefore, a lump sum of Rs.15,00,000/- is also being awarded to the claimant towards attendant charges for his aforesaid period as claimed as well as for his future life. The injured/claimant is thus entitled to an DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 16 of 26 amount of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 15,00,000/-) under this head.
ISSUE No. 3/Relief
36. In view of foregoing discussion, the claimant is thus awarded a sum of Rs.37,93,182/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakh Ninety Three Thousand One Hundred Eighty Two only) (Rs.45,982/- + Rs. 84,000/- + Rs.16,63,200/- + Rs.4,00,000/- + Rs.16,00,000/-) along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition. Further, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
RELEASE
37. Out of amount awarded, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 150 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 150 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account opened/to be opened near the place of his residence, as directed vide order dated 29.04.2019 and the remaining 10% amount is also directed to be released into his above said account, DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 17 of 26 which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him.
38. The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
39. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be individual account and not a joint account.
40. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the claimant and the above amount shall be released in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
41. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of his residence.
42. The maturity amount of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of claimant.
43. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 18 of 26 Court.
44. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
45. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
46. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
47. In view of foregoing discussions, all the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to claimant, but respondent no. 3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR by DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 19 of 26 RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Respondent no. 2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
48. The respondent No. 3 shall inform the claimant and his counsel through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
49. The copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent by email. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the Award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
50. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
51. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.(supra) on 08.01.2021, are as under:-
DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 20 of 261. Date of the accident 29.12.2018
2. Date of filing of Form I- First NA Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the NA victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from NA the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from NA the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- NA Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and NA Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII- 29.04.2019 Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 21 of 26 action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) Legal offer filed, but of the offer of the Insurance not acceptable to the Company. claimant.
14. Date of the Award 17.10.2023
15. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 29.04.2019 were 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 claimant (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) Yet to furnish produced the 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 As mentioned above the claimant(s)
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yet to furnish bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were No examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 22 of 26
52. File be consigned to Record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 20.01.2024.
Announced in the open court. (Shefali Barnala Tandon) on 17.10.2023 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: The summary of computation in the prescribed format DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 23 of 26 SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN INJURY CASES IN FORM XVI
1. Date of accident : 29.12.2018
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Anik Prasad
3. Age of the injured : 58 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Minimum wages of unskilled worker in Delhi
5. Income of the injured : Rs. 14,000/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by : JPNA Trauma Centre the injured
8. Period of hospitalization : As mentioned above
9. Whether any permanent : 90% permanent disability? disability, but taken as 100% functional disability
10. Computation of Compensation Sr.No. Heads
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment : Rs. 45,982/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance : Rs. 50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant : Rs. 15,00,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity : Nil
(vi) Loss of Income : Rs.84,000/-
(vii) Any other loss which may : Nil
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
(for future treatment)
DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 24 of 26
12. Non-pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental : Rs.1,50,000/-
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.1,50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.1,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, : Nil
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 : 90% permanent physical
assessed and nature of disability.
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of : Nil
expectation of life span on
account of disability.
(iii) Percentage of loss of : 100% functional
earning relation to disability disability
(iv) Loss of future income : Rs.16,63,200/-
14. Total Compensation Rs. 37,93,182/-
15. Interest Awarded : 7.5% pa from date of filing of DAR till the date of award to be deposited in 30 days and 9% thereafter.
16. Interest amount up to the : Rs.12,72,015/-
date of award DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 25 of 26
17. Total amount including : Rs. 50,65,197/-
interest (rounded off to Rs.
50,65,500/-)
18. Award amount released : 10% share
19. Award amount kept in the : 90% share
FDRs/ Motor Accident
Claims Annuity Deposit
(MACAD)
20. Mode of disbursement of : Through Bank
the award amount to the
claimant (s)
21. Next date for compliance : 20.01.2024
of the award
(Shefali Barnala Tandon)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
17.10.2023
DAR No. 286/19 Anik Vs. Lokender & Ors. Page 26 of 26