Delhi District Court
Ajay vs Manoj Kumar on 4 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010053252023
MACT No. : 337/2023
FIR No. : 318/2021
PS : Dharuhera, Haryana
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Mr. Ajay (injured/petitioner)
S/o Mr. Prakash,
R/o H.No.RC-112, Rajasthan Colony,
West Patel Nagar, Delhi-110008. ......Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Manoj Kumar (driver)
S/o Sh. Rajbir,
R/o Village Kanaunda,
PS Sadar Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajar, Haryana.
2. Sangwan Bus Service (owner)
(through owner)
Sh. Gaurav
S/o Sh. Jasbir Singh,
R/o Village Kharmaan,
PS Sadar Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajar, Haryana-124507.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer)
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 ......Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition : 20.04.2023
Judgment reserved on : 12.02.2025
Date of Award : 04.03.2025
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 1 of 37
AWAR D
The petitioners filed the present claim petition under
sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 on 20.04.2023.
Brief facts of the case:
2. The Road Traffic Accident in question took place on
23.09.2021 at about 02.00 PM near Masani Village, Police Station
Dharuhera, District Rewari, Haryana. Mr. Ajay had sustained grievous
injuries in the said accident. The said accident allegedly occurred with
the offending vehicle i.e. bus bearing registration No. HR-63E-2914
which was being driven by respondent No.1, Manoj Kumar; owned by
respondent no. 2, Sangwan Bus Service and insured with respondent
no. 3, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
3. The brief facts that have emerged from the claim petition
are that the information of an accident was received at P.S. Dharuhera,
Haryana. PSI Sachin along with Ct. Parveen went to the Medion
hospital, where they found both the injured persons under treatment.
They collected the MLC of injured, Ajay @ Monu and MLC of injured,
Babu Lal. Doctors opined that the injured person was ‘unfit for
statement’. On 25.09.2021, IO again visited the hospital and recorded
the statement of both the injured persons. On the basis of MLC of the
injured persons and statements of the injured persons, case was
registered under section 279/338 IPC and investigation was initiated.
During the course of investigation, IO recorded the statements of
witnesses and prepared the site plan. Notice under Section 133 M.V. Act
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 2 of 37
was issued to the registered owner. Thereafter, he produced the
offending bus and driver of the offending vehicle in the police station
and the driver was apprehended and on enquiry, arrested. Since the
offence was bailable, he was released on bail on furnishing of bail
bonds. The offending vehicle was seized by the IO and sent to the
Malkhana. The documents of the offending vehicle were taken into the
custody of the IO. The documents pertaining to the offending vehicle
were found to be correct after verification from the concerned authority.
Driver had not produced his driving license. On completion of
investigation, chargesheet under section 279/338 IPC was filed against
the driver and DAR was filed before the court on 20.04.2023.
4. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 did not appear despite due service
and thus, they were proceeded ex parte vide orders dated 31.10.2023
and 15.01.2024 respectively. No written statement was filed on behalf of
respondent nos.1 and 2. Reply was filed on behalf of respondent no. 3.
ISSUES FRAMED
5. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
15.01.2024, this Tribunal had framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the petitioner/ injured suffered grievous injuries in an
accident that took place on 23.09.2021 at about 02.00 P.M. near Masani
Village, Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari, Haryana-123106
involving vehicle bearing HR-63E-2914 driven rashly by respondent
no.1 Manoj Kumar? OPP.
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 3 of 37
(ii) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the
vehicle without having valid Driving License at the time of the
accident? OPP
(iii) Whether the petitioner/ injured is entitled for compensation? If so,
to what amount and from whom? OPP
(iii) Relief.
EVIDENCE
6. To prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1.
Respondent no.3 examined Mr. Nawal Singh, Manager, Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. as R3W1.
7. The Petitioner filed the Form XIV. Financial statement of
the petitioner has been recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf
of the petitioner and respondent no. 3.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel
for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. My findings on the various
issues are as under:-
ISSUE No. 1:
Whether the petitioner/ injured suffered grievous injuries in
an accident that took place on 23.09.2021 at about 02.00 P.M. near
Masani Village, Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari,
Haryana-123106 involving vehicle bearing HR-63E-2914 driven rashly
by respondent no. 1 Manoj Kumar? OPPMACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 4 of 37
9. Before delving into the facts of the current case to decide
the aforementioned issues, it is pertinent to highlight that it is firmly
established in legal precedents that the proceedings conducted before the
Claims Tribunal are in the nature of an inquiry. Further, procedural
approach adopted by an accident claims’ tribunal mirrors that of a civil
court (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009
ACJ 287). In civil proceedings, the establishment of facts hinges on a
preponderance of probabilities, rather than being bound by the strict
rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt, as
required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in civil cases is lighter
than in criminal cases, and the burden to decide claim petition under The
Motor Vehicles Act is even lesser as compared to a civil litigation. In
Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors
(2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a
conclusion.
10. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legal principle for
adjudicating the present issue, this Tribunal has thoroughly gone through
the testimony of the witnesses and all the material available on record.
Also, careful consideration has been given to the arguments addressed
by Learned Counsels for the petitioner as well as respondent no. 3.
The factum of accident:
11. In this matter to prove the occurrence of the accident as
well as the rashness and negligence on the part of the driving of
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 5 of 37
offending vehicle by respondent no.1, the petitioner (PW-1) in his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A had deposed as under:-
“I state that on 22.09.2021, I was going from Delhi
to UP village Chand Pur, PS Chand Pur, District
Bijnor, UP and reached at Village near Narnaul with
my vehicle no. DL-1LY-8772. The vehicle was being
driven by Sh. Shaahwaj, s/o. Mohd. Mumtaz. The
vehicle was punctured. We started changing the tyre
of vehicle after stopping on the left side of the road.
On 23.09.2021 at about 2:00 PM I sat on the
conductor seat of the vehicle DL-1LY8772. The
roadways Rajasthan Bus bearing no. HR-63E2914
reached at Masani Village PS Dharuhera District
Rewari came at very high speed being driven by
respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner in
contravention of rules of traffic and hit the
vehicle/pick-up and I fell down on the road and got
multiple grievous injuries including bone fracture at
right shoulder, displaced fracture of mild soft of
right clavicle bone and back side, eye and other parts
of my body were also injured.
I went to the Dr. Mediom Hospital Dharuhera,
Haryana. I was admitted on 23.09.2021 at 3:30 PM
for treatment, where MLC was made bearing no. 53
dated 23.09.2021. I was discharged from hospital on
25.09.2021. Thereafter, I remained under treatment
in Delhi Hospital i.e. Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel
Hospital, Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The doctor also
advised for the operation.
The accident took place solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of respondent no. 1 who drove the
bus/offending vehicle at a very high speed, rashly
and negligently. The respondent no. 1 had driven his
vehicle in contravention of all the traffic rules and
norms and as such respondents are entirely
responsible for the said accident.
I was about 22 years of age at the time of accident. I
was working as conductor in private company in
Delhi and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Due
to said incident and displacement of bone at right
shoulder I was unable to continue with my job and
suffered acute financial hardship. I have alreadyMACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 6 of 37
incurred around Rs. 50,000/- on treatment, medicine
and special diet etc. and more expenditure is still due
as I even have to be operated by surgeon. I have no
source of income. My family is shattered due to the
negligent act of respondent no. 1. I estimate the loss
suffered by me on various account to the claim of
Rs. 10,00,000/-.”
12. PW-1 has proved the factum of the accident and the identity
of respondent no.1. He has unequivocally testified that respondent no.1
was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which
led to the accident in question. He has deposed that on 22.09.2021, he
was going from Delhi to UP village Chand Pur, PS Chand Pur, District
Bijnor, UP and when he reached at Village near Narnaul on vehicle no.
DL-1LY-8772 which was being driven by Sh. Shaahwaj, s/o. Mohd.
Mumtaz, the same got punctured. He further deposed that they started
changing the tyre of the vehicle after stopping on the left side of the road
and at about 2:00 PM, he sat on the conductor seat of the vehicle
DL-1LY-8772. He also deposed that Rajasthan Roadways Bus bearing
no. HR-63E-2914 reached at Masani Village P.S. Dharuhera District
Rewari which was coming at a very high speed and was being driven by
respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner, in contravention of rules
of traffic and hit the vehicle/pick-up due to which the petitioner/ injured
fell down on the road and got multiple grievous injuries including bone
fracture on the right shoulder, displaced fracture of mild soft of right
clavicle bone and back side, eye and other parts of his body were also
injured.
13. He further deposed that he was taken to Dr. Mediom
Hospital Dharuhera, Haryana where he was admitted on 23.09.2021 at
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 7 of 37
3:30 PM for treatment and was discharged on 25.09.2021. Thereafter, he
remained under treatment in Delhi Hospital i.e. Sardar Ballabh Bhai
Patel Hospital, Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
14. Even otherwise, the petitioner was unknown to respondent
no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there was no prior enmity with
respondent no. 1 and hence, it is beyond comprehension as to why the
petitioner will implicate the respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been
driving the offending vehicle. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that the
accident occurred due to his negligence.
15. Further, it is settled law that the petitioner cannot be
expected to prove the accident to the hilt and the principle of res ipse
loquitor should apply which means that the “accident speaks for itself”.
Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the
accident had taken place, the burden shifts on respondent no.1 to prove
that he was not responsible for the accident which he has clearly failed
to discharge. The respondent no.1, who was the driver of the vehicle,
would have been the most crucial witness capable of refuting the
petitioner’s allegations of the occurrence of the accident and rash and
negligent driving. However, he did not step into the witness box. Thus,
adverse inference is drawn against the respondents. In this regard,
reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM
APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC.
APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi
& Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 8 of 37
APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the
judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh
2009(3) AD Delhi 310. No convincing material has been brought on
record by the respondents to show that respondent no. 1 was not rash
and negligent while driving the offending vehicle. From the testimony
of PW-1 and entire record, it stands proved that respondent no.1 acted in
a rash and negligent manner while driving his vehicle due to which the
petitioner suffered injuries.
16. Furthermore, in view of filing of DAR containing the
charge-sheet for the offences u/s 279/338 IPC and other relevant
documents against the respondent no. 1 and in terms of the judgment in
the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009 ACJ
287 Delhi, respondent no. 1 Manoj Kumar (driver of the offending
vehicle) is held to be negligent on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities. From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent
no. 2, Sangwan Bus Service was the registered owner of the offending
vehicle. It is also an admitted position that the offending vehicle was
insured with respondent no.3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy
No. 261602/31/2021/590 valid w.e.f. 17.02.2021 to 16.02.2022. The
factum of the said insurance is also admitted by the respondent no.3
insurance company.
The injury:
17. The petitioner (PW-1) testified that due to the accident, he
sustained grievous injuries and especially bone fracture on his right
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 9 of 37
shoulder, displaced fracture of mild soft of right clavicle bone and back
side, eye and other injuries all over his body. He further testified that he
was taken Dr. Mediom Hospital Dharuhera, Haryana where he remained
admitted from 23.09.2021 to 25.09.2021. He was treated vide MLC
bearing no. 53 dated 23.09.2021.The alleged history has been mentioned
as “patient hit by roadways bus.”
18. Furthermore, the petitioner had filed an application to be
examined for assessment of physical disability. He was examined by the
Medical Board at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and vide certificate bearing
No. 2038 dated 28.09.2024, it has been observed that the petitioner is a
case of “FUC # Rt Clavicle” and the Board was of the opinion that he is
physically disabled and has 05% Five percent permanent physical
impairment in relation to his Rt upper limb. It has been further observed
that this condition is non progressive and not likely to improve.
19. From the above deposition and in totality of the
circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner has
been able to bring on record sufficient facts so as to prove at the scales
of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took
place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing
registration number HR-63E-2914 by its driver/respondent no. 1 on the
date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the
petitioner had suffered grievous injury and permanent disability of 05%
in relation to his right upper limb. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in
favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 10 of 37
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so,
to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
20. The onus of proving the above issue was upon the
petitioner/injured. It has already been concluded in the preceding
paragraphs while deciding the issue no. 1, that the petitioner had
suffered grievous injury and he has permanent disability of 05 % in
relation to his right upper limb.
21. The petitioner is certainly entitled for compensation in view
of decision of the discussion on the above issues. Before proceeding
further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate
the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its guiding
lamp post judgment for ascertaining just compensation in road vehicular
injury cases. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1
SCC 34, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“General principles relating to compensation
in injury cases
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 heMACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 11 of 37
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).
5. The heads under which compensation is
awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
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.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma
as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under heads (i),
(ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury,
where there is specific medical evidence
corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that
compensation will be granted under any of the heads
(ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future
earnings on account of permanent disability, future
medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of
life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under itemMACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 12 of 37
(i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty
as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are
easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under
the head of future medical expenses – item (iii) —
depends upon specific medical evidence regarding
need for further treatment and cost thereof.
Assessment of non-pecuniary damages – items (iv),
(v) and (vi) — involves determination of lump sum
amounts with reference to circumstances such as
age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered
by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future
life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High
Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under
these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some
difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future
earnings on account of permanent disability – item
(ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this
case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to
permanent disability.
6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack
of ability to perform an activity in the manner
considered normal for a human-being. Permanent
disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body, found existing at the
end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after
achieving the maximum bodily improvement or
recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder
life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the
incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on
account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the
end of the period of treatment and recuperation.
Permanent disability can be either partial or total.
Partial permanent disability refers to a person’s
inability to perform all the duties and bodily
functions that he could perform before the accident,
though he is able to perform some of them and is
still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total
permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to
perform any avocation or employment related
activities as a result of the accident. The permanent
disabilities that may arise from motor accidents
injuries, are of a much wider range when compared
to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995 (`Disabilities Act’ for short). But if any of the
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 13 of 37
disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the
Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in
a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities
for the purpose of claiming compensation.
7. The percentage of permanent disability is
expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole
body, or more often than not, with reference to a
particular limb. When a disability certificate states
that the injured has suffered permanent disability to
an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the
same as 45% permanent disability with reference to
the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb
(or part of the body) expressed in terms of a
percentage of the total functions of that limb,
obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of
disability of the whole body. If there is 60%
permanent disability of the right hand and 80%
permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that
the extent of permanent disability with reference to
the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If
different parts of the body have suffered different
percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof
expressed in terms of the permanent disability with
reference to the whole body, cannot obviously
exceed 100%.
8. 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
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 14 of 37
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 permanently
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 Arvind
Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. –
2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M.,
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide
whether there is any permanent disability and if so
the extent of such permanent disability. This means
that the tribunal should consider and decide with
reference to the evidence: (i) whether the
disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the
disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent
total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the functioning of the
entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered
by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is
no permanent disability then there is no question of
proceeding further and determining the loss of future
earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that
there is permanent disability then it will proceed to
ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the
actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant
based on the medical evidence, it has to determine
whether such permanent disability has affected or
will affect his earning capacity.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the
permanent disability on the actual earning capacity
involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 15 of 37
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 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
by treating the loss of future earning capacity as
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 16 of 37
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.”
22. In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under
heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and
damages for pain, suffering and trauma. However, in cases of serious
injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the
claim of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the
heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of
prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The assessment of
future medical expenses would depend upon specific medical
evidence/advise for further treatment and costs thereof. The
determination of damages on account of pain and suffering, loss of
amenities and loss of expectation of life would depend upon the age of
victim, nature of injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and
the effect thereof on life of the petitioner. The process would involve
determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those heads. In
the case of assessment of loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability, this Tribunal needs to first ascertain whether the
disability noted/assessed by the medical board is temporary or
permanent in nature. If the disability is permanent in nature, then
whether it is a total permanent disability or partial permanent disability.
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 17 of 37
If the disability has been referred/expressed in percentage terms, in
reference to any specific limb then the effect of such disability of the
limb on the function of entire body has to be ascertained. Once, the
permanent disability is ascertained, then the Tribunal needs to determine
whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect the earning
capacity of the claimant. To ascertain the same, the Tribunal needs to
ascertain the avocation, profession and nature of work of the claimant
before the incident. The Tribunal also needs to ascertain his age and
then needs to ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in
spite of permanent disability and what he could not do as result of same.
The Tribunal then also needs to ascertain whether the claimant is totality
disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the
permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on
activities and functions which he was carrying on earlier or whether the
claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of
activities and functions to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood
despite permanent disability suffered. After ascertaining the functional
disability through the above process, the Tribunal needs to workout the
loss of earning capacity per month. The Tribunal is thereafter required
to workout loss of earning capacity per annum. An appropriate
multiplier needs to be ascertained as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in matter of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC
according to age of the injured/victim. The total loss of earning capacity
then needs to be worked out multiplying appropriate multiplier
ascertained with ascertained annual loss of earning capacity. This is a
case where permanent disability is claimed and compensation is also
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 18 of 37
demanded qua future loss of earnings on account of permanent
disability, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to
decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the
present matter in light of above preposition.
Determination of Injuries and Duration of the Treatment:
23. It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature of
injuries suffered by the petitioner/injured and duration of treatment as
they need to be kept in mind while ascertaining the compensation under
different applicable heads. The petitioner has filed his medical record to
prove his nature of injuries as per which, injured has suffered grievous
injuries in the incident in question. It has also been proved that he has
suffered 05% disability in relation to his right upper limb. It has also
been proved that the petitioner was hospitalised from the date of
accident i.e. 23.09.2021 till 25.09.2021 in Dr. Medion Hospital. Thus,
his compensation is computed as follows:
Medical expenses:
24. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 27,343/- towards medical
expenses in his Form XIV. In this regard, the petitioner has placed
reliance on the following original medical bills:
Table No. 1.
S. HOSPIAL/PHARMACY BILL NO. BILL DATE AMOUNT
No. NAME
1. Mediom Hospital, MH1394 25/09/2021 20,064
Rewari, Haryana.
2. Anshika Pharmacy, 0000355 23/09/2021 1,694.13
Rewari, Haryana.
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 19 of 37
3. Anshika Pharmacy, 0000356 24/09/2021 2,310.55
Rewari, Haryana.
4. Anshika Pharmacy, 0000357 25/09/2021 908.82
Rewari, Haryana.
TOTAL 24,977.50/-
25. All the bills appear to be proper. Therefore, the petitioner/
injured Ajay shall be entitled to Rs. 24,977.50/- towards medical
expenses.
Loss of income:
26. Coming to the aspect of loss of income, the petitioner Ajay
claimed that he was working as a conductor in a pick up and was also
doing a private job in Delhi and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month,
however, he has not filed any document on record to prove the same.
Thus, his income will have to be assessed as per the minimum wages.
The petitioner has filed on record his Aadhar card bearing no. 4737 9032
4249 as per which he was a resident of Delhi but no educational
qualification or special skill has been placed on record. Therefore, in the
absence of proof of employment and income and considering his address
to be of Delhi, the minimum wages for an unskilled labour prevalent in
Delhi at the time of the accident (on 23.09.2021) i.e. Rs. 15,908/- is
taken as the income of the petitioner/ injured Ajay. Therefore, it is held
that the monthly income of the petitioner/ injured Ajay at the time of the
accident i.e. on 23.09.2021 was Rs. 15,908/-. Further, the petitioner has
claimed that he was not able to work for 05 months but he has not filed
any such document on record to prove that he was not able to work at all
for 05 months. However, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 20 of 37
by the petitioner as well as his period of hospitalisation, it is held that
the petitioner shall be entitled to the Loss of Income for 03 months i.e.
Rs. 15,908/- x 3 = Rs. 47,724/-.
Pain and Suffering:
27. The petitioner/ injured has claim Rs. 1,00,000/- under the
head pain and suffering. It is true that a particular amount cannot be
fixed under the head pain and suffering which could be applicable to all
cases as it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the
fact that since the petitioner has received grievous injuries, therefore,
petitioner must have suffered pain and sufferings owing to the said
injuries. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the
injured/petitioner as mentioned in the MLC as well as the disability
certificate, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs.25,000/-
towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental shock:
28. The petitioner/ injured has claim Rs. 1,00,000/- under the
head mental and physical shock. Though there cannot be any proof of
the mental shock suffered by anyone and the same cannot be quantified
in terms of money but a claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- has not been justified by
the petitioner. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries suffered by
the injured/petitioner as mentioned in the MLC as well as the disability
certificate, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs.25,000/-
towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 21 of 37
Special Diet:
29. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 50,000/- under the head
special diet but there is no cogent evidence on record regarding money
spent by the petitioner upon special diet. However, considering the
nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of
the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this head.
Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards
expenses incurred on special diet.
Conveyance charges:
30. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 30,000/- under the head
conveyance charges but there is no cogent evidence for the same.
However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the
injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must
have incurred some expense on conveyance. Hence, this Tribunal hereby
grant compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
31. The petitioner/ injured has not claimed any amount under
this head.
Compensation for disfiguration:
32. The petitioner/ injured has claimed Rs. 50,000/- under this
head. Taking into account the injuries suffered by him and also noticing
the disability suffered by him, Rs. 10,000/- is awarded to the petitionerMACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 22 of 37
under this head.
Compensation for loss of amenities:
33. The petitioner/ injured has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- under
this head. The petitioner has not filed anything on record to prove his
claim to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities.
However, taking into account the injuries suffered by him and also
noticing the disability suffered by him, Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the
petitioner under this head.
Compensation for loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness
in future life etc.:
34. The petitioner/ injured has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- under
this head. It is correct that compensation for loss of earning,
inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in future life cannot be computed in terms
of money, however, considering the nature of injuries and the disability
suffered by the injured, Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under
this head.
Future loss of income:
35. The petitioner Ajay has claimed loss of earning capacity to
the extent of 25% in his Form XIV. It has already been established that
the petitioner has suffered 05% disability in relation to his right upper
limb. The petitioner has pleaded that the functional disability of theMACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 23 of 37
petitioner shall be considered to be 25%. However, this Tribunal is of
the view that the functional disability of the petitioner is 2.5% in relation
to the whole body for the purposes of calculating the compensation. The
income of the petitioner has been assessed as Rs. 15,908/- as on the date
of accident.
36. As per the Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the injured/
petitioner Ajay is 11.01.1999, thus, as on the date of accident i.e.
23.09.2021, the petitioner was aged 22 years 08 months and 12 days old.
Thus, he was more than 22 years old and less than 23 years of age.
Accordingly, the Multiplier of eighteen (18) is taken for purposes of
calculating the loss of income of the petitioner (Reliance is placed on the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision – 31.10.2017). Further, by adopting
the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the future prospects of Ajay
shall be 40% as he was self employed and was below the age of 40 years
at the time of accident on 23.09.2021.
37. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of
the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 15,908/-In view of the above, the
loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs. 15,908/-
Annual Income Rs. 15,908/- x 12 =
Rs. 1,90,896/-
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 24 of 37
Add Future Prospects @ 40% Rs. 1,90,896/- x 40% =
Rs. 76,358.40/-
Total income Rs. 2,67,254.40/-
Disability @ 2.5% Rs. 2,67,254.40/- x 2.5%= Rs. 6,681.36/-
Loss of Income after multiplier (18) Rs. 6,681.36/- x 18 = Rs. 1,20,264.48/-
(rounded off to Rs.1,20,265/-)
38. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by
the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, it is held that the
petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 1,20,265/- under the head future loss of
income.
39. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances,
the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines
governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is
being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 24,977.50/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 15,908/- Loss of income for 03 months Rs. 47,724/- Add future prospects @ 40% Rs. 76,358.40/-
Loss of future income (income X % Rs. 1,20,265/-
Earning Capacity X Multiplier)
Any other loss/expenditure Nil.
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & 25,000 + 25,000=
Suffering Rs. 50,000/-
Special diet Rs. 10,000/-
Attendant charges Nil.
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 25 of 37
Conveyance charges Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
Disfiguration Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of Marriage prospects Nil.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 25,000/-
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
Total Rs. 3,22,966.50/-
(rounded off to Rs. 3,22,967/-)
40. In the case of Benson George v Reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 2022 decided on 25.02.2022,
Hon’ble Supreme Court had awarded an interest of 6% per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 20.04.2023 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
41. The Financial Statement of the petitioner/injured was
recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly
expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/- per
month.
42. Keeping in view the above as well as the fact that the
petitioner has already spent a huge amount on his treatment, it is held
that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 3,22,967/- (Rupees Three
Lacs Twenty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven only),
Rs.1,22,967/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Two Thousand Nine Hundred
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 26 of 37
and Sixty Seven only) plus entire interest amount be released to the
petitioner/claimant Ajay and the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lacs only) shall be put in 08 monthly fixed deposits in his
name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 08 months
respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions
contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021.
Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall
automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a
nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence without the
facility of cheque book and ATM card.
43. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to the
petitioner only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving
account in a bank near his residence with endorsement of the bank that
no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been
issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued
without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
44. The above FDR(s) shall be prepared with the following
conditions as enumerated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders
dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to
be added in the saving account or fixed deposit
accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts
of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank
account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 27 of 37
bank in safe custody. However, the statement
containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of
maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by
bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited
by the ECS in the saving bank account of the
claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without
the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any
cheque book and/or debit card to claimants.
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
claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect
of the account of claimants from any other branch of
the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the
passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no
cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and
shall not be issued without the permission of the
Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook
with the necessary endorsement before the Court for
compliance.
45. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 23.09.2021
2. Name of the Injured: Ajay
3. Age of the Injured: 22 years
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 28 of 37
4. Occupation of the Injured: Unskilled labour
5. Income of the Injured: Rs. 15,908/-
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken: Mediom Hospital.
8. Period of Hospitalization: 23.09.2021 to 25.09.2021
9. Whether any permanent 5%
disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 24,977.50/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Nil.
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 10,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 15,908/-
(vi) Loss of income of 03 months Rs. 47,724/-
(vii) Add future prospects @ 40 % Rs. 76,358.40/-
(viii) Any other loss which may Nil.
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life: future treatment and
future attendant charges.
2.
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 25,000 + 25,000=
physical shock Rs. 50,000/-
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 29 of 37
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 25,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration
Rs. 10,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 25,000/-
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 5% Permanent
and nature of 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 earning 2.5%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (income Rs. 1,20,265/-
x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 3,22,966.50/-
1(i+ii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+iii+iv+vi) + (rounded off to Rs. 3,22,967/-)
3(iv)
5. Total Compensation Rs. 3,22,967/-
Interest awarded 6%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 30 of 37
award passed by Ld. -
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 36,279.95/-
award w.e.f. 20.04.2023 (01 year
10 months and 14 days)
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 3,59,246.95/-
(rounded off to Rs. 3,59,247/-)
. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 42
10. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para no. 42
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 42
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 04.04.2025
award
LIABILITY:
46. The offending vehicle was being driven and owned by
respondent no. 1, Manoj Kumar; owned by respondent no. 2, Sangwan
Bus Service and insured with respondent no. 3, Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd.
47. On the point of liability, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3/
Insurance Company has submitted that respondent no.1 was driving the
offending vehicle without a valid permit and Fitness Certificate and
thus, there was a violation of the terms of insurance policy and
therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the
respondents. Respondent no. 3 has also examined Mr. Nawal Singh,
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 31 of 37
Manager, as R3W1 who proved the service of notice under Order 12
Rule 8 of CPC upon respondent nos. 1 & 2 to produce valid permit and
fitness certificate as on the date of accident i.e. 23.09.2021.
48. On the other hand, respondent nos. 1 and 2 have not led
any evidence to prove on record that they had a valid permit at the time
of the accident. They have not even filed the permit and fitness
certificate on record. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the
respondents, and considering the above, it is concluded that the
offending vehicle did not have a valid permit and fitness certificate at
the time of the accident. However, keeping in view the spirit of MACT
provisions and the underlying object of the Act which is reasonable and
quick grant of compensation to the victims of road traffic accident, this
Tribunal directs respondent no. 3 to pay the award amount to the LRs of
the injured. Respondent no. 3 is at liberty to recover the same from
respondent nos. 1 & 2, jointly and severally.
Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
RELIEF
49. The respondent no. 3 – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is
directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,22,967/- (Rupees Three Lacs Twenty
Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven only) along with interest
@ 6% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 20.04.2023 till realization with
the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the
claimant, failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest
@ 7.5% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. After
payment, respondent no. 3 may recover the amount paid from
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 32 of 37
respondent nos. 1 and 2, jointly and severally.
50. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.
534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the
claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties
free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services
Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
04.04.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form
XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 33 of 37
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors.,
date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today Digitally signed by RUCHI RUCHI AGGARWAL on this 04th day of March, 2025 AGGARWAL ASRANI ASRANI Date: 2025.03.04 16:56:00 +0530 (Dr. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI. MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 34 of 37 FORM - XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1 Date of Accident 23.09.2021
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report Not mentioned
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
to the victim(s) Not mentioned
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
from the Driver Not mentioned
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner Not mentioned
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance Not mentioned
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from Not mentioned
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII - The petitioner had filed the claim petition on
Detail Accident Report 20.04.2023.
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company Not provided
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 35 of 37
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes.
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Designated No.
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of No legal offer was filed. The insurance company
the Insurance Company. had filed its reply.
14 Date of award 04.03.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes.
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN 11.05.2023
card and Aadhar Card and
the direction to the bank not
to 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) produced the 04.03.2025
passbook of their savings
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 36 of 37
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card?
18 Permanent residential As per Award.
address of the claimant(s).
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes.
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant was
of passing of the Award to
recorded.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally signed
by RUCHI
RUCHI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL ASRANI
ASRANI Date:
2025.03.04
16:56:12 +0530
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
PO, MACT-01 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
04.03.2025
MACT No.337/2023 Ajay Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Page 37 of 37
[ad_1]
Source link