IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY] PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: (WEST-01):DELHI [CASE NUMBER] Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Raj Pal R/o. H. No. WZ-77B, Phase-Iv, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 Petitioner VERSUS 1. Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sh. [ENTITY], R/o D-2, Shivlok Apartments, Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi. 2. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o D-2, Shivlok Apartments, Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi. 3. [ENTITY] Insurance Co. Ltd. Office At: A-3, Plot No. 7 & 8, Khurana Bhawan, Janakpuri, New Delhi. (insurance company/R-3) Respondents
Date of Institution: 30.04.2014 (DAR) Date of reserving order/judgment: 16.05.2017 Date of pronouncement : 24.05.2017 A W A R D:
INFORMATIONINTERMSOFPROVISIONSOFTHEMODIFIED CLAIMTRIBUNALAGREEDPROCEDURE([ACT]) 1 DateofAccident 07/01/2014 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the 09/01/2014 Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clasuse2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the 15/01/2014 Investigation Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause2) 4 DateoffilingoftheReportundersection173Cr. NotprovidedbytheIO PCbeforetheMetropolitanMagistrate(Clause10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 30/04/2014 Report(DAR) by the Investigation Officer before ClaimsTribunal(Clause) 6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 30/04/2014 Company(clause11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s) 22/03/2014 (Clause11) 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes (Clause11) 9 IfnotstatedeficienciesintheDAR 10 Whether the police has verified the documents Yes filedwithDAR?(clause4) 11 Whethertherewasanydelayordeficiencyonthe No. part of the Investigation Officer? If so, whether anyaction/directionwarranted?
12 DateofappointmentoftheDesignatedOfficerby Notmentioned.
theInsuranceCompany 13 Name , address and contact number of the Not mentioned as Legal Designated Officer of the Insurance Offer was filed by the Company(Clause19) insurancecompany 14 WhethertheDesignatedofficeroftheinsurance Notmentioned.
Company submittedhisreportwithin30daysof theDAR?(Clause21) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the Yes. Legal Offer was filed liability?Ifso,whethertheDesignatedOfficerof bytheinsurancecompany. the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensationinaccordancewithlaw.(Clause22) 16 Whethertherewasanydelayordeficiencyonthe No part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so whether any action/ direction warranted?
17 Dateofresponseoftheclaimant(s)totheofferof Notmentioned.
theInsuranceCompany?(Clause23) 18 DateofAward 24/05/2017 19 Whethertheawardwaspassedwiththeconsent Yes oftheparties?(Clause22) 20 Whethertheclaimants(s)examinedatthetimeof Yes passing of the award to ascertain his/ their financialcondition?(Clause26) 21 Whether the photographs, specimen signatures, Yes proofofresidenceandparticularsofbankaccount oftheinjured/legalheirsofthedeceased taken atthetimeofpassingoftheaward?(Clause26) 22 Modeofdisbursementoftheawardamounttothe Mentionedintheaward claimant(s)(Clause28) 23 NextDateofcomplianceoftheaward(Clause30) 04/07/2017
1. Vide this Judgment-cum-Award, I shall decide the petition under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as 'Act') filed by petitioner Sh. [ENTITY] for grant of compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the road vehicular accident.
2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that on 07.01.2014 at about 4.30 p.m., when the petitioner was driving his motorcycle bearing no. DL-9SV-2681 make Bajaj Discover, he was hit from behind by the Santro Car bearing registration No.DL-4CM- 4255 on the flyover between Old No. 13 & 14 Pankha Road, Main Maya Puri Road, New Delhi. It has been further stated that the said offending vehicle i.e. Santo Car bearing No. DL-4CM-4255 was being driven by Respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and the petitioner was hit by the same with a violent force. It has been further stated that the petitioner received grievous injuries all over his body on account of the impact.
3. It has been further stated that the injured was taken to DDU Hospital where the MLC bearing no. 260/2014 dated 07.01.2014 was prepared. It has been further stated that on account of the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, he was operated in the said hospital and skin grafting was done. It has been further stated that the petitioner is still under active treatment for the injuries sustained in the said accident. It has been further stated that the petitioner will have to undergo for another operation as per the advice of the doctors. It has been further stated that the muscles of the left leg below the Heal and Joint of the petitioner have been completely damaged/ruined and the petitioner has suffered permanent disability. It has been further stated that due to the said accident, two ribs of chest of the petitioner have been broken and the pain in the chest is continuing. It has been further stated that the left leg of the petitioner has also been broken and steel rod has been put in his left leg. It has been further stated that the whole stomach of the petitioner was operated due to blood clotting and removed the same after doing major operation. It has been further stated that the petitioner cannot eat the food easily and he is suffering continuous pain in his stomach. It has been further stated that due to the said injuries, the petitioner suffered weakness in his both eyes. It has been further stated that the petitioner has spent about Rs. 2,00,000/- so far and is still spending upon the treatment, conveyance and special diet.
4. It has been further stated that due to the grievous injuries, the petitioner has lost his job and he will not be able to continue his job which would affect the entire future of the petitioner. It has been further stated that the petitioner was doing private work of tailoring but due to the accident, the petitioner is unable to do his work till date. The petitioner has claimed compensation under various heads and in total the petitioner has claimed the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only).
5. As a result of the abovesaid accident, as per the case of the petitioner, FIR No. 11/2014; [ENTITY] u/[SECTION] [ACT] was registered against the respondent No.1.
6. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 being the driver of the offending vehicle, the respondent no.2 being the owner and the respondent no.3 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
7. Written statement has been filed by the respondents No. 1 & 2 jointly stating therein that the present petition has been filed with a view to extort the money from respondents. It has been further stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 at the time of accident and as such, the respondents no. 1 & 2 are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 was having valid driving license at the time of accident. It has been further stated that the accident in question took place on account of the own negligence of the petitioner. It has been prayed by the respondents no. 1 & 2 that the present petition may be dismissed.
8. Written statement has also been filed on record by the Insurance Company i.e. by the respondent no.3. It has been further stated that the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident in favour of Sh. [ENTITY] vide policy No. 0G-14-1121-1801- 00002159 issued from the period 30.08.2013 to 29.08.2014.
9. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 21.12.2015.
1.Whether the petitioner [ENTITY] suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 07.01.2014 at about 4.30 pm. On flyover between Pole No. 13 & 14, Pankha Road, Main Maya Puri Road, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 of the vehicle No. DL-
4CM-4255 owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
10. In order to establish its claim, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the petitioner in the present claim petition. He has filed on record his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A, original salary certificate issued by his employer as Ex. PW1/1, original disability certificate as Ex.PW1/2, original treatment prescription slips and OPD Cards along with bills amounting to Rs. 3606/- as Ex. PW1/3 (colly) (8 to 32 sheets) and copy of his driving license as Ex. PW1/4(OSR) and the DAR filed by the police together with the documents as Ex. PW1/5 (colly).
11. In the cross examination, PW1 has stated that on the date of accident, he was on the left side of the road. PW-1 has further stated that he does not remember whether there was a divider on the road where the accident took place. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to his own negligence while driving the motor-cycle. PW-1 has further stated that he was wearing helmet while driving the motor-cycle. PW-1 has admitted it to be correct that his driving license Ex. PW1/4 is valid upto 07.10.2020. PW-1 has admitted it to be correct that on 30.08.2014, he was working with M/s [ENTITY] & Sons. By way of volunteer, PW-1 states that at the time of issuance of salary certificate Ex. PW1/1, he was not working with M/s [ENTITY] & sons. PW-1 has stated that he has one daughter and one son. PW- 1 has further stated that his daughter is working and is bearing the expenses of house-hold.
12. PW-1 has stated that he is 8 th class pass but he does not have any document in this regard. PW-1 has further stated that no appointment letter was issued to him by his employer. During the cross examination of PW-1, the copy of his Aadhar Card has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/DA. PW-1 has admitted the contents of his Aadhar Card and has stated that he was having his election ID Card and Aadhar Card but the original of the same were not traceable.
13. Petitioner has further examined Dr. [ENTITY] from Guru Govind Singh Government Hospital as PW-2 and this witness has proved on record the disability certificate of the petitioner which is there already on record in the form of Ex. PW1/2. PW2 has further stated that the petitioner was having 49% permanent disability in relation to his lower left limb.
14. In the cross examination, PW2 has stated that he has brought the calculation sheet which was prepared prior to the issuance of the disability certificate and the same has been exhibited as Ex. PW2/1 (OSR).
15. The petitioner has examined Sh. [ENTITY], his employer as PW-3 and this witness in his examination-in-chief has stated that Ex. PW1/1 has been issued by him and the same bears his signature at point X.
16. In the cross examination, PW-3 has stated that the petitioner was employed by him 6-7 months prior to the date of accident. PW-3 has further stated that no appointment letter was issued by him. PW-3 has further stated that he never obtained the signatures of the petitioner on the salary slip in lieu of the salary paid by him. PW-3 has further stated that he does not maintain any record pertaining to the attendance of his employee. PW-3 has further stated that Ex. PW1/1 has been issued after the accident of the petitioner at his request. PW-3 has further stated that he does not have any document pertaining to the employment and salary of the petitioner.
17. The respondents have not led any evidence.
18. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses; entire material available on record. I have also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for insurance company. The petitioner has also been examined under the [ACT] and I have considered the statement of the petitioner under [ACT] as well.
My findings on various issues are as under :-
19. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner u/[SECTION] & [SECTION] [ACT] and the onus is upon the petitioner to prove the rash and negligent act of the respondent No.1.
20. The petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 who has well explained the mode and manner of accident. He has reaffirmed and reiterated the averments made in his petition. He has filed on record his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A, original salary certificate issued by his employer as Ex. PW1/1, original disability certificate as Ex.PW1/2, original treatment prescription slips and OPD Cards along with bills amounting to Rs. 3606/- as Ex. PW1/3 (colly) (8 to 32 sheets) and copy of his driving license as Ex. PW1/4(OSR) and the DAR filed by the police together with the documents as Ex. PW1/5 (colly).
21. The respondents No. 1 & 2 have failed to appear in the witness box and in the considered opinion of this Court, they have utterly failed to prove on record that the accident in question took place on account of the negligence of the petitioner. During the cross examination of PW1 as well, nothing has come out so as to discredit his testimony.
22. In the present case, the police have filed the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) on record pertaining to FIR No. 11/2014; [ENTITY]; u/[SECTION] [ACT].
23. On the aspect of negligence, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in [PRECEDENT] wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under [SECTION] A [ACT] or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the [ACT] are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
24. In view of the testimony of PW-1; in the light of the law discussed above and after going through all the documents filed by the police in Detailed Accident Report (DAR) i.e. final report u/[SECTION] [ACT]; Copy of rukka and FIR; MLC and discharge summary; photograph; site plan; seizure memo of vehicle; seizure memo of the DL; RC; insurance policy and its verification; notice u/[SECTION] V. Act; mechanical inspection report of the vehicle involved in the accident as well as documents filed by the petitioner as a whole, it is clear that respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
The issue No:1, therefore, stands decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
25. Nature of injuries and reimbursement of medical bills The petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit that he was taken to DDU Hospital which is a Government Hospital. PW-1 has further stated that he was operated in the said hospital and that on account of the accident on 07.01.2014, he received grievous injuries (the details of the injuries have already been given hereinabove). PW-1 has placed on record his original treatment prescription slips, the OPD Cards along with the bills amounting to Rs. 3606/- in the form of Ex. PW1/3. As such, to my mind, under this head, the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 3606/-.
26. Compensation towards future treatment The petitioner has placed on record his OPD Cards but in the calculation sheet which has been filed on record by the petitioner for claiming the compensation of Rs. 14,17,606/-, no amount has been claimed on account of future treatment. The entire claim petition is also silent on the aspect of the amount on account of future treatment. As such, to my mind, the petitioner is not entitled for any amount under this head.
27. Pain & sufferings It is settled law that a particular amount can not be fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries as elicited above, he might have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. Considering the nature of injuries as elicited above and facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby grant compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and sufferings. In the calculation sheet which has been filed by the petitioner for claiming the compensation of Rs. 14,17,606/-, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been claimed but to my mind there is no rationale for claiming the amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs under this head and as such, the amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs on account of pain and sufferings is hereby declined.
28. Compensation for conveyance & special diet Though there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by the petitioner for conveyance, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner elicited above, I am of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some sum under this head. Hence, I hereby grant compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for expenses incurred on conveyance and special diet.
29. Compensation towards attendant charges Though, there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by the petitioner for conveyance, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner elicited above, I am of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some sum under this head. Hence, I hereby grant compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges.
30. Compensation towards loss of income during treatment period PW-1 has placed on record the photocopy of his ration card wherein the year of the birth of the petitioner has been shown as 1962. The contents of his Aadhar Card were admitted by PW-1 during his cross examination and as per the Aadhar Card, the year of birth of the petitioner is 1963. In the photocopy of his license Ex. PW1/4 on record, the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 08.10.1970. In the cross examination, PW-1 has admitted it to be correct that he was having his election ID Card and his Aadhar Card but photocopies of the same have been lost. In the claim petition, the petitioner has mentioned his age as 52 years.
As such, there is a great anomaly in the date of birth of the petitioner. In the calculation sheet filed on record by the petitioner for claiming the compensation of Rs. 1417606/-, it has been stated that as per the DL Ex. PW1/4 on record, the date of birth of the petitioner is 08.10.1970 and as such, the age of the petitioner has to be taken as 43 years on the date of accident which is 07.01.2014. But to my mind, the above said contentions of the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the above said difference in the year of birth of the petitioner in different documents. Accordingly, to my mind, the year of birth of the petitioner has to be taken as 1963 as has been mentioned in his Aadhar Card and the contents of which have not been denied by PW-1. Accordingly, the age of the petitioner on the date of the accident comes out to 52 years on the date of the accident which has been mentioned by none other but by the petitioner himself in the claim petition.
31. In the claim petition, the petitioner has claimed that he was working as a Tailor with M/s [ENTITY] & Sons and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. PW-1 has placed on record his salary certificate as Ex. PW1/1. PW-1 has also examined his employer Sh. [ENTITY] as PW-3. The cross examination of PW-3 and that of PW-1, in its material aspects, has already been reproduced hereinabove. There is no appointment letter with PW-1. PW-3 is unable to produce any document to show that PW-1 was employed with him. PW-1 is not having any degree or diploma or any other qualification in tailoring. As such, I no hesitation to hold that there is nothing on record to show the income of the petitioner or to show the educational qualification of the petitioner. PW-1 in the cross examination has admitted that he was 8 th pass but he was not having any document in this regard.
32. In these circumstances, the income of the petitioner can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the [ACT] as unskilled person. The date of accident was 07.01.2014 on which the minimum wages for unskilled person for the relevant period were Rs. 8086/-. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as nature of injuries as elicited above, the court is of the opinion that petitioner could not have worked for about 4 months. Accordingly, I hereby grant compensation for a sum of Rs. 32,344/- (Rs. 8086/- x 4)- towards loss of income during treatment period.
33. Compensation on account of disability This court has received the disability certificate containing 49% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb as Ex. PW1/2. The disability certificate has not been disputed by the insurance company. As such, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to prove on record the disability Certificate as Ex. PW1/2 and that he has sustained 49% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb in the present case.
Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has vehmentally argued that there is no functional disability with the petitioner. Whereas on the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was working the job of a Tailor and after the accident, he has not been able to do the job of tailoring and accordingly the functional disability of the petitioner has to be considered as 100%.
34. It is now the settled law that it is the percentage of functional disability arising out of physical disability which matters while assessing the compensation arising out of disability. On this aspect, I gain support from judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "[ENTITY] Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors, reported as 2011 ACJ" I in which it was held as under:-
"Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss,that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent ( percentage ) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent ( percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent percentage of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment , the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation(See for example, the decisions of this court in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]"
As discussed hereinabove, to my mind, PW-1 has utterly failed to prove on record that he was doing the job of tailoring. Accordingly, keeping in view the nature of the injuries the functional disability of the petitioner has to be taken as 49% which has been mentioned in the disability certificate as well.
35. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has requested for balancing the income of the victim on the basis of inflation trends and requested that 50% increase be made in the income of the victim on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "[PRECEDENT] . On this aspect, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in '[PRECEDENT]' in MAC. [CASE NUMBER] & [CASE NUMBER] decided on 29/01/2016 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] wherein it has been held as under:
"5. The law is well settled that in case of compensation on account of death, loss of dependency is to be computed by adopting the multiplier having regard to the age of the deceased or the claim whichever is higher[ U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and [PRECEDENT]
6. In the case reported as [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6SCC 121, Supreme Court, inter-alia, ruled that the element of future prospects of increase in income will not be granted in cases where the deceased was " self employed" or was working on a "fixed salary". Though this view as affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in [ENTITY] & Ors Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr, (2013) 9SCC 65, on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors vs. Rajbir & Ors, (2013)9 SCC 54 the issue was later referred to a larger bench, inter alia by order dated 02/07/2014 in [PRECEDENT].
7. Against the above back drop by judgment dated 22/01/2016 passed in [CASE NUMBER] [PRECEDENT]. ), the court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in MAC Apeal no.
189/2014 ([PRECEDENT]) decided on 12.01.2015, presently taking the decision in [ENTITY] (supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future prospects for those who are " self -employed" or engaged in gainful employment at a " fixed- salary" is clarified by a larger bench of the Supreme Court"
After going through the facts and circumstances of the present case and the aforesaid case laws laid down, I am not inclined to grant future prospects on the income of the petitioner in this case.
36. In the present case, the petitioner was 52 years of age as on the date of accident for which the relevant multiplier '11' (for the age group of 51 to 55 years) as mentioned in [ENTITY] (supra). In these circumstances, the total loss of earning capacity comes out to be Rs. 5,23,002.48 p. rounded off to Rs. 5,23,002/- = ( Rs. 8086/- x 12 x 11x 49/100).
37. Compensation towards loss of amenities of life.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present facts; the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner as elicited above, I hereby grant compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards for loss of amenities of life.
In the circumstances of the case, I award him the compensation as tabulated hereunder:-
S No. Heads of Amount Compensation 1. Reimbursement of medical Rs. 3606/- expenses 2 Compensation on account of Nil future treatment 3. Pain and Suffering Rs. 20,000/- 4. Conveyance & special diet Rs. 20,000/- 5. Attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- 5. Loss of Income during Rs. 32,344/- treatment period 6. Compensation on account of Rs. 5,23,002/- disability 7. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 6,18,952/- R E L I E F:
38. I hereby pass an award of Rs. 6,18,952/- (Rupees Six Lacs Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Two Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR i.e., 30.04.2014 in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
HEARD ON THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE CLAIMANT BEFORE PASSING OF THE AWARD AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIEDCLAIMTRIBUNALAGREEDPROCEDURE' ([ACT]).
39. Thecourthasexaminedthepetitioneron15.04.2017 quahisfinancialstatusbeforepassingtheawardinthiscasein accordancewiththeprovisionslaiddownin[ACT].Thepetitioner hasstatedthatinhisfamily,hehashiswifeandonesonandone daughter aged about 21 & 22 years. The petitioner has further statedthathehastospendanamountofRs.15,000/permonthin maintaininghisentirefamilyandhehastospendanamountofRs. 3,000/permonthinmaintaininghimself.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIMTRIBUNALAGREEDPROCEDURE'([ACT]).
40. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also In accordance with the orders dated 13.02.2017 passed in [CASE NUMBER] titled as [PRECEDENT]. by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 6,18,952/- (Rupees Six Lacs Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Two Only) as stated herein above with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, out of which the amount of Rs. 1,18,952/- shall be released to the petitioner keeping in view the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and that of the petitioner as well and in the entirety of the facts.
The rest of the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) shall be kept in 50 equal monthly [ENTITY]'s for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each with cumulative interest.
41. The following conditions shall be adhered to by SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the [ENTITY]'s:
(i) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a statement containing [ENTITY] number, [ENTITY] amount, date of maturity of [ENTITY] and maturity amount of the [ENTITY]s be given to the claimant.
(ii) The maturity amount of the [ENTITY] be credited in the saving account of the claimant near the place of her residence.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to the claimant in the savings bank account without permission of the Court.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(v) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victims APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
42. The respondent No. 1 being the driver, the respondent no.2 being the owner and respondent no.3 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly liable to pay the abovesaid award amount to the petitioner. Since, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 on the date of the accident, the respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the name of petitioner within a period of 30 days under the intimation to this court. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 04/07/2017 as there are Summer Vacations in the month of June 2017. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. MetropolitanMagistrateaswellasDSLSAaspertheprovisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE ([ACT]).
Announced in the open court On of 24h of May, 2017 ( [ENTITY] ) P.O.MACT (WEST-01) Delhi (24/05/2017) FORMAT -II
Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Raj Pal R/o. H. No. WZ-77B, Phase-Iv, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 Petitioner VERSUS
4. Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sh. [ENTITY], R/o D-2, Shivlok Apartments, Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi.
5. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o D-2, Shivlok Apartments, Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi.
6. [ENTITY] Insurance Co. Ltd. Office At: A-3, Plot No. 7 & 8, Khurana Bhawan, Janakpuri, New Delhi. (insurance company/R-3) Respondents FORMAT OF BRIEF SYNOPSIS TO BE FILED IN INJURYCASES
1. Date of accident. : 07/01/2014
2. Name of the injured : Sh. [ENTITY]
3. Age of the injured. : About 52 years.
4. Occupation of the injured : Worked as a Tailor
5. Income of the injured. : Income of the petitioner is assessed on the basis of minimum Wages for an unskilled person as Rs.8086/-
6. Nature of injury. : Grievous injury
7. Medical treatment taken by: Medical treatment was taken by the injured: by the injured
8. Period of Hospitalization : He was hospitalized on 07.01.2014
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details. This court has received the Disability certificate containing 49 % permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb as Ex.PW1/2.
10. Photographs of the injured:
and the injuries. Photograph of petitioner attached with disability certificate containing 49 % permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb as Ex.PW1/2.
11. Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Claim of Response of Respondent(s) Petitioners(s) A Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 3606/-
(ii) Expenditure on Rs. 20,000/- conveyance (Including special diet) (iii) Expenditure on special diet As above (iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 10,000/- (v) Loss of income Rs. 32,344/- (vi) Compensation on account Rs.5,23,002/- of disability (vii) Any other loss / N/A expenditure B. Non-Pecunicary Loss: (i) Compensation for mental and physical shock (ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- (iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 10,000/- (iv) Dis figuration (v) Loss of marriage N/A prospects (vi) Loss of earning, N/A inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. C. Disability resulting in loss of earning Rs. 5,23,002/- capacity: (i) Percentage of disability assessed In the present case the and nature of disability as petitioner has suffered permanent or temporary 49% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb as Ex.PW1/2. Functional disability to the extent of 49% has been taken into account keeping in view the disability certificate of the PW-1. (ii) Loss of amenities of loss of N/A expectation of life span on account of disability (iii) Percentage of loss of earning In the present case the capacity in relation to disability petitioner has suffered 49% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb as Ex.PW1/2. Functional disability of the petitioner to the extent of 49% has been taken into account keeping in view the disability certificate of the PW-1. (iv) Loss of future Income(Income x % Rs. 5,23,002/- Earning Capacity Multiplier) ( Rs. 8086/- x 12 x 11x 49 / 100). TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 6,18,952/- INTEREST An award of Rs. 6,18,952/- (Rupees Six Lacs Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Two Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR i.e.,30.04.2014 in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. BRIEF SUBMISSIONS:-
1. An award of Rs. 6,18,952/- (Rupees Six Lacs Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Two Only) has been passed as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR i.e.,30.04.2014 in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
2. In the present case the petitioner has suffered 49% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb as Ex.PW1/2. Functional disability to the extent of 49% has been taken into account keeping in view the disability certificate of the PW1.
3. The petitioner was examined for their financial status in this case.
4 A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir and put the same on 04/07/2017.
( [ENTITY] ) P.O. MACT (WEST-01) Delhi 24/05/2017 24.05.2017 Present None Award is passed separately. File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 04/07/2017 as there are Summer Vacations in the month of June 2017.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. MetropolitanMagistrateaswellasDSLSAaspertheprovisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE ([ACT]).
( [ENTITY] ) P.O. MACT (WEST-01) Delhi 24.05.2017