-1- IN THE COURT OF SH. D.K. MALHOTRA, ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE CUM PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI (MACT No. 747/10/08) Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Hari Singh R/o House No. 13, Village & P.O. Jaurasi Sarf Khas, Block No.4, Teh.Samalkha, Distt. Panipat, Haryana IInd address : House No. 249, Village & P.O. Jaurasi Sarf Khas, Block No.4, Teh.Samalkha, Distt. Panipat, Haryana Petitioner Versus 1. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o. Sh. Mahender 2. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o. Sh. Ram Singh Both R/o. Village Jeet Garh, Jaurasi Khas, Teh.Samalkha, Distt. Panipat, Haryana 3. The [ENTITY] 19, Reliance Centre, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Respondents Date of institution 03.12.2008 Date of decision 27.08.2012 -2- (Application u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation) JUDGMENT:
1 Petitioner who is aged about 50 years filed the present claim petition claiming therein a compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. on the ground that on 25.09.2008 the injured/petitioner alongwith Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY] alongwith their vegetables bags/borries were travelling in [CASE NUMBER] Tempo no. HR-46/A-3813 and were proceeding towards Subzi Mandi at Delhi from their residence at Village & P.O. Jaurasi Khas, Distt. Panipat via GTK Road, Delhi to sell their vegetables and the driver/respondent no.1 [ENTITY] was driving the said tempo at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, in a zig zag manner, without observing proper look out and without caring for the rules of traffic and continued driving the same inspite of the repeated requests and warnings given by the injured/petitioner as a result of which at about 12.20 a.m. when the said tempo reached at Main GTK Road, on the pullia of Village Singhu then the driver could not control the speed of the tempo and over turned on the road. As a result of this forceful hit the petitioner with other persons along with their vegetables bags/borries fell down on the road and sustained serious/grievous injuries all over their bodies. Further it is stated that the petitioner was removed to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Hospital from the place of accident and was admitted there and is still under active treatment. Petitioner further alleged that accident took place solely and entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 A criminal case under [SECTION] [ACT] was registered against respondent no.1 vide FIR No. 243/08 in police station Alipur.
2. Petitioner alleged that at the time of accident he was having agricultural land measuring 1 acre and was doing agricultural work thereby earning Rs.6000/- PM by growing/selling vegetables but due to the serious/grievous injuries received in the accident he could not work for about one year. He claimed sum of Rs. 8 lakhs alongwith interest as compensation from the respondents being driver, owner and insurance company under various pecuniary and non pecuniary heads.
3. Respondents no. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement submitting therein that the alleged offending vehicle when reached at Main GTK Road at about 12.20 am suddenly one bus came in middle of the road and in order to avoid the accident the respondent no.1 turned the vehicle but unfortunately the vehicle hit the pulia and turned and it was just an accident and not the fault of respondent no.1. Further, it is stated that the accident was neither caused due to rash, negligent and careless driving of respondent no.1 nor liable to make payments of the alleged compensation. Whereas R-3/insurance company in its written statement admitted existence of insurance policy in respect of offending vehicle but tried to avoid its liability on various technical grounds.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 18.09.2009 by my Ld. Predecessor:
1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in the road side accident caused on 25-9-08, at about 12.20am at main GTK Road, on the pulia of village Singhu, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of R.1/driver of the offending vehicle No. HR- 46/A-3813? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents? OPP
3. Relief
5. Petitioner in support of his claim examined PW1 [ENTITY] from BASE Hospital, Delhi Cantt., Delhi and proved the attested copies of medical record as Ex.PW1/A, PW2 [ENTITY] from PS Alipur who brought the copy of FIR and proved the same as Ex.PW2/A. Further, petitioner examined himself as PW3 and tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW3/A and relied upon the documents mentioned in his affidavit and also proved the documents i.e. furd of his agricultural land Ex.PW3/A (colly two sheets) PW4 ASI [ENTITY] from P.P Sriniwas Puri deposed that on receipt of DD no.3A he along with Ct. [ENTITY] reached at Singhu Border, GTK Road, near Pulia where one tempo bearing no.HR-46- A-3813 was in damaged condition and in overturned position where they came to know that six injureds were shifted to BJRM Hospital & conducted the investigation of this matter and filed the charge sheet. Whereas respondents did not produce any evidence in support of their defence. PW5 Dr. [ENTITY], Specialist Orthopedics from Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital proved the disability certificate of the petitioner as Ex.PW5/A being Member of the Board who assess the disability of the inured. Witness stated that due to optic atrophy of right eye the patient suffered loss of vision as the nerve which connects the eye with the brain shrinks and does not work properly and due to disability grip strength, pinching power and wrist movement power of the patient is reduced. Whereas insurance company has examined R2W1 Sh. [ENTITY], Assistant Legal (Legal), Reliance General Insurance who deposed regarding sending notice u/[SECTION] sent to owner and driver through post and proved the postal receipts Ex.R3W1/3 and Ex.R3W1/4 and the policy as Ex.R3W1/5.
6. I have heard counsel for parties and gone through the record. My decision on the above mentioned issues is as under:
Issue no.1:-
7. The proof required in MACT claim petition are less than the proof required to criminal offence or a civil case. The principles to be followed in the case of motor accident claims has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati in case cited as [PRECEDENT] wherein it is held that:
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the standard proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society.
In [PRECEDENT]. [PRECEDENT], Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, especially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasizing this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their "neighbour".
8. The police has prosecuted the R-1 for causing the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. [CASE NUMBER] Tempo bearing registration no. HR-46/A-3813 by filing the charge sheet. PW1/petitioner himself in his statement specifically narrated the way and manner in which the accident took place by way of affidavit. Witness has clearly stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending Tempo. No complaint has been lodged by driver and owner of the offending vehicle before any higher authority regarding the fact that R-1 has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of injured or IO. It is not the case of R-1 that injured or IO of the case nursed grudge or enmity with owner of the vehicle or they are known to each other. No evidence is led on behalf of R-1 and R-2 in support of contention of R-1 that accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle driven by R-1 but due to negligence of the injured himself. Hence adverse inference has to be drawn against them. Nothing has come in cross-examination by insurance company that accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of R-1. Though he denied the suggestion of insurance company that he was traveling in the [CASE NUMBER] as a passenger after making payment of Rs. 5/- to the driver. Testimony of PW1 is trustworthy and unimpeachable who deposed that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of R-1 due to which he sustained serious and grievous injuries as mentioned above. Hence this issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no.2:-
9. Petitioner was taken to the hospital after sustaining injuries on 25.09.2008 and injuries suffered were grievous in nature and he suffered 40% permanent disability.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 2011 decided on 01.11.2011 has observed as under:
"The personal sufferings of the survivors and disabled persons are manifold. Some time they can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is permanently disabled in an accident, the cost of his medical treatment and care is likely to be very high. In cases involving total or partial disablement, the term "compensation" used in [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short, "the Act") would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for a particular injury or disability caused by an accident. A very large number of people involved in motor accidents are pedestrians, children, women and illiterate persons. Majority of them cannot, due to sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabilities, engage competent lawyers for proving negligence of the wrongdoer in adequate measure. The insurance companies with whom the vehicles involved in the accident are insured usually have battery of lawyers on their panel. They contest the claim petitions by raising all possible technical objections for ensuring that their clients are either completely absolved or their liabilities minimized. This results in prolonging the proceedings before the Tribunal. Sometimes the delay and litigation expenses' make the award passed by the Tribunal and even by the High Court (in appeal) meaningless. It is, therefore, imperative that the officers, who preside over the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under [SECTION] of the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure. The amount of the compensation in such cases should invariably include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
In [PRECEDENT], this Court while dealing with a case involving claim of compensation under the [ACT], referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward v. James (1965) - All ER 563, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (page 446) and observed:
"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance, (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial, (iii) other material loss. So for non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future, (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit;
(iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e, on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life".
In the same case, the court further observed:
"In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards".
In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka MANU/SC/0803/2009: (2009) 6 SCC 1, the three-Judge Bench was dealing with a case arising out of the complaint filed under the [ACT]. While enhancing the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore, the Bench made the following observations which can appropriately be applied for deciding the petitions filed under [SECTION] of the Act:
"At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis- -vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution ensures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity".
In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan Manu/SC/1303/2009:
(2009) 13 SCC 422, this Court reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be just and also identified the factors which should be kept in mind while determining the amount of compensation. The relevant portions of the Judgment are extracted below:
The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms.
In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Limited Manu/SC/0777/2010: (2010) 10 SCC 254, the Court considered the plea for enhancement of compensation made by the Appellant, who was a student of final year of engineering and had suffered 70% disablement in a motor accident. After noticing factual matrix of the case, the Court observed:
"We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as ho was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered".
In [PRECEDENT], the court considered some of the precedents and held:
"The provision of the [ACT], ('the Act', for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as for as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and hie inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned".
In our view, the principles laid down in [PRECEDENT] (supra) and [PRECEDENT] (supra) must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Court in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident".
The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages) I)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourising 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.
iii)Future medical expenses.
Non Pecuniary damages (General damages):
iv) Damages for pain suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (I), Iii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
We shall now consider whether the compensation awarded to the petitioner is just and reasonable or he is entitled to enhanced compensation under any of the following heads:
i) Loss of earning and other gains due to the amputation of leg.
ii) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
iii)Future medical expenses.
iv)Compensation for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg.
v) Loss of amenities including loss of the prospects of marriage.
vi)Loss of expectation of life.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 2011 decided on 01.11.2011 has further observed as under:
"In this view of the matter, in our view, it would be difficult to hold that for future medical expenses which are required to be incurred by a victim, fresh award could be passed. However, for such medical treatment, the court has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the basis of the evidence brought on record."
"After the aforesaid judgment, the cost of living as also the cost of artificial limbs and expenses likely to be incurred for periodical replacement of such limb has substantially increased. Therefore, it will be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the appellant for future treatment. If this amount is deposited in fixed deposit, the interest accruing on it will take care of the cost of artificial limb, fees of the doctor and other ancillary expenses."
"The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg was meager. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the Courts should make a broad guess for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the Appellant was a young man of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work. Therefore, we feel that ends of justice will be met b awarding him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg."
"The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of amenities was also meager. It can only be a matter of imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of life with one artificial leg. The Appellant can be expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period he will not be able to live like normal human being and will not be able to enjoy the life. The prospects of his marriage have considerably reduced. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life."
Pecuniary damages (Special damages):
Medical Expenses
11. It is the case of the petitioner that after the accident he was removed to Base Hospital at Delhi Cantt. as he was entitled to treatment in Army Hospital because his son [ENTITY] is working in Armay. There in Base Hospital POP Slab was applied on his left wrist, repair of eyelid (right) was done and forehead would was manged. Further petitioner stated that he also took treatment from the doctors of his native village and spent Rs. 10,000/- on medical treatment but could not collect and retain all his medical bills due to lack of knowledge. Though in support of this petitioner filed on record medical treatment record alongwith Ex.PW3/1. Accordingly, keeping in view the above facts, petitioner is entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses.
Loss of income
12. Petitioner is entitled to both pecuniary and non pecuniary damages. It is submitted that at the time of accident he was having agricultural land measuring 1 acre and was doing agricultural work thereby earning Rs.6000/- PM by growing/selling vegetables but not proof of income has been filed on record. Further petitioner stated that due to the serious/grievous injuries received in the accident he could not work for about one year. But he has not produced any document in support the same. Accordingly the amount of Rs. 4107/- per month as per [ACT] has to be taken into account for the purpose of calculations of the loss assuming him under the category of skilled worker. Petitioner is granted the loss of income of 12 months only. Thus he is entitled to sum of Rs. 49,284/- (Rs. 4107/-X12).
13. As per the case of injured, he has suffered disability to the extent of 40% (disability in relation to eye written statement 30% and in relation to left upper limb was 15% and according to combination formula the disability comes to 40%). He is not working because being not capable of working and in that very nature of the things the functional disability is 100%. In this regard reliance is taken upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as [PRECEDENT] decided on 16.08.2011.
14. The petitioner/injured was doing agricultural work. He was aged about 50 years at the time of accident. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]. [CASE NUMBER] decided on 25.8.2009 held that keeping in view the trend of increase of minimum wages of semi skilled worker from time to time and rises in price index and inflation, it can be said that minimum wages of unskilled worker would get almost double over a period of next ten years and thus future prospects should be given upon minimum wages also. In this regard the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case titled [PRECEDENT]. Thus applying the formula given in these judgments, the monthly income of the petitioner can be held at Rs. 6,160.50/- (4107 + 50%).
15. Petitioner in the petition described his age as 50 years which is corroborated with the document i.e. certified copy of his MLC prepared in Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi. Hence in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in [PRECEDENT], multiplier of 13 has to be applied to count loss of earning capacity.
As no deduction from income has to be taken towards personal expenses in case of injury as per decision of Delhi High Court in [PRECEDENT] decided on 22.3.2010 so the total loss of future income or earning capacity comes to Rs. 3,90,312/- as per the formula (6,160.50 X 12 X 13 X 40%). Accordingly petitioner is granted loss of future income at Rs. 3,84,415/- (in round figure) Special diet and conveyance charges
16. Petitioner has stated that he spent amount of Rs. 20,000/- on conveyance and Rs. 20,000/- on special diet and employed a attendant who attended him during the period of his treatment but no proof of spending upon conveyance, special diet and attendant is brought on record but it is a fact that normally in case of sickness and serious injury, a special diet in the form of healthy food, juices, milk etc is provided instead of or in addition to the normal food. Accordingly I am of the view that maximum petitioner can be paid lump sum Rs. 25,000/- towards special diet and Rs.25,000/- conveyance charges.
Pain, suffering and inconvenience
17. As per the case of [ENTITY] it is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person suffered permanent disability as a result of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets out of grievous injuries, he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the Courts should make a broad guess for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the Appellant was a man of 50 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work. Therefore, ends of justice will be met by awarding him a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of pain, suffering and inconvenience etc. caused due to injuries suffered in accident.
Loss of amenities & shortening of life and disfigurement of body
18. It can only be a matter of imagination that as to how he performed day to day activities as efficiently as he was. The Appellant can be expected to live for at least 60 years. During this period he will not be able to live like normal human being and will not be able to enjoy the life. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and shortening of life as per the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court given in case [PRECEDENT] and [ENTITY] vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited. Further petitioner stated that due to the serious/grievous injuries sustained by him on his face in the accident his face was disfigured and his social life has been greatly affected, therefore a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the disfigurement of body
19. Respondent no.3/insurance company has not brought on record any evidence to point out that it is not liable to pay compensation amount. Further it is not the case of the insurance company that any term or condition of the insurance policy was breached by the insured or it has any limited liability. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company alone becomes entitled to pay entire compensation amount.
20. In view of the above discussions, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner by holding that he is entitled to get the following total compensation from the respondent/insurance company only:
A) Pecuniary damages (Special damages): a) Medical Expenses Rs. 10,000/-
b) Special diet Rs. 25,000/-
c) Conveyance charges Rs. 25,000/-
d) Loss of income Rs. 49,284/- e Loss of future income Rs. 3,84,415/-
B) Non-pecuniary damages (General damages):
a) Pain, sufferings and inconvenience Rs.1,00,000/-
b) Loss of amenities and shortening of life Rs.1,50,000/-
c) Disfigurement of face Rs.1,00.000/-
Total Rs. 8,43,699/-
Issue no.3 (Relief):-
21. On the basis of findings given above, present petition is disposed off and respondent no. 3/insurance company is directed to pay sum of Rs. 8,43,699/- to the petitioner within 30 days alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of petition i.e. 03.12.2010 till this amount is fully paid in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as [PRECEDENT]. Reported as [CASE NUMBER]. If the payment is not made within 30 days from the date of order today then insurance company shall pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of petition.
22. Further it is directed that 10% of the awarded amount be released to the petitioner in cash and 90% of the awarded amount alongwith upto date interest be deposited with HDFC Bank, Pitampura Branch, Delhi with liberty to petitioner to withdraw monthly interest through saving bank account in form of FDR initially for period of five years to be renewed from time to time in the name of petitioner not to be encashed without the permission of the court.
Respondent no. 3 is directed to prepare the separate cheques of the compensation amount as per above order.
Copy of this judgment be given to petitioner and counsel for respondent no.3 Insurance Company and file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (D.K. MALHOTRA) Court on 27.08.2012 JUDGE, MACT (OUTER-II) DELHI