Delhi District Court
Ashish (I) (Fir 202/2023/Timarpur) vs Amit @ Love Pandey (Without Insurance) on 21 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010095432023
MACT No. : 628/2023
FIR No. : 202/2023
PS : Timar Pur
u/s : 279/337/338 IPC
Mr. Ashish Shukla (injured/petitioner)
S/o Sh. Sarju Prasad Shukla
R/o C. No. 639, 28/12, Gali No. 5,
Near Shiv Mandir, Sangam Vihar,
Wazirabad, North Delhi, Delhi-110084. ......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Amit @ Love Pandey (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Chandan Pandey
R/o VPO Piro, P.S. Piro, Ward no. 15,
Distt. Bhojpur, Bihar.
2. Sh. Durgesh Pandey (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Satya Narayan Pandey
R/o 9A/7699, Ghanta Ghar
Dharmpura Roshnara Road,
Sabji Mandi, Delhi. ......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 17.07.2023
Judgment reserved on : 15.04.2025
Date of Award : 21.04.2025
AWAR D
The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed on 17.07.2023
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 1 of 44
was registered as a Motor Accident Claim petition. The DAR revealed
that a Road Traffic Accident took place on 13.04.2023 at about 7:00
P.M. near Tara Singh Chowk towards Gandhi Vihar, Delhi wherein the
petitioner, Ashish Shukla, had sustained grievous injuries. The accident
took place with a vehicle bearing registration No. DL-6CQ-7550 driven
rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1, Amit @ Love Pandey and
owned by respondent no. 2, Durgesh Pandey.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on
13.04.2023, on receiving the information of an accident at P.S. Timar
Pur vide DD No. 105A, SI Gurcharan Singh along with HC Pradeep
went to the spot of the accident where he was informed that the injured
had been taken to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines. No eye witness of the
accident was present at the spot. After leaving HC Pradeep at the spot,
SI Gurcharan Singh went to Trauma Centre and collected the MLC No.
778/23 with respect to injured Ashish and MLC No.779/23 of injured
Piyush (minor). He recorded the statement of the injured on 14.04.2023
wherein he stated that he is a resident of Wazirabad, Delhi and
employed with Civil Defence, Delhi. He further stated that on
13.04.2023, he along with his son Piyush (aged about 9 years) had
visited Tara Chand Chowk, Dheerpur on his motorcycle and at about
7:00 P.M., when he was returning to his home, one car make Swift
bearing registration no.DL-6CQ-7550 which was being driven by its
driver at high speed, rashly and negligently, hit his motorcycle due to
which, he along with his son fell on the road and sustained injuries. He
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 2 of 44
also stated that he called his brother Anurag who came at the spot and
called the police at 112 number and took both his son and him to the
hospital in the offending vehicle, however, the driver of the offending
vehicle fled from the hospital. He also stated that the accident occurred
due to sole rashness and negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle and therefore, appropriate legal action be taken against him. On
the basis of the MLCs of the injured persons and the statement of the
injured Ashish Shukla, offence under Section 279/337 IPC was found to
have been committed and accordingly, FIR No. 202/2023 was registered
at P.S. Timar Pur.
3. During the course of investigation, IO had prepared the site
plan at the instance of the injured. The IO served notice under Section
133 M.V. Act upon the owner of the offending vehicle who appeared at
the police station and in reply to notice under Section 133 M.V. Act, he
stated that on 13.04.2023, Amit @ Love Pandey was driving his car at
the time of the accident and that the RC of the offending vehicle is lost
and the said vehicle is not insured. The IO seized the offending vehicle.
Thereafter, driver of the offending vehicle was apprehended and arrested
by the IO, however, since the offence was bailable, he was released on
bail on furnishing of bail bonds. The IO got the mechanical inspection
of the offending vehicle conducted. The driver informed that he does
not have the driving license and therefore, Section 3/181 M.V. Act was
added. Thereafter, the offending vehicle was released on superdari by
the concerned court. IO had collected the MLCs of the injured persons
after final opinion wherein the injury of injured Ashish Shukla was
mentioned as ‘grievous’ and the injury of injured Piyush was mentioned
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 3 of 44
as ‘simple’. Since injured Ashish Shukla had sustained grievous
injuries, section Section 338 of IPC was added. The IO got the RC of
the offending vehicle verified from the concerned authority and
ownership of the offending vehicle was found to be valid. Since the
offending vehicle was not insured, a separate kalandra under Section
146/196 of M.V. Act was filed against the owner of the offending
vehicle. On completion of investigation, chargesheet under section
279/337/338 IPC & 3/181 M.V. Act was filed against the driver of the
offending vehicle before the court of the concerned Ld. MM and DAR
was filed before this Tribunal on 17.07.2023.
4. Respondent nos.1 & 2 had filed their written statement on
20.01.2024.
ISSUES FRAMED
5. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
24.04.2024, this Tribunal had framed the following issues:
i. Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an
accident that took place on 13.04.2023 at about 7:00 PM near Tara
Singh Chowk towards Gandhi Vihar, Delhi involving vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-6CQ-7550 driven rashly and negligently by
Respondent No.1 Amit @ Love Pandey and owned by respondent no.2
Durgesh Pandey? (OPP)ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 4 of 44
iii. Relief.
EVIDENCE
6. To prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1
and petitioner’s evidence was closed vide order dated 09.10.2024.
Respondent nos. 1 & 2 examined themselves as R1W-1 and R2W-1 and
RE on behalf of both the respondents was closed vide order dated
10.02.2025.
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 the respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and
Ld. Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. My findings
are as under:-
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
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 5 of 44
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 the Learned Counsels for all the parties.
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
offending vehicle by respondent no.1, the petitioner (PW-1) in his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A had deposed as under:-
“1. That the deponent is the injured in this case and
well conversant with the facts of the case and
competent to depose his evidence as PW-1 and
Aadhar Card of the deponent is Ex. PW-1/A (OSR).
2. That the deponent says on oath that on the fateful
day of 13.04.2023 at about 7.00 P.M. the deponent
along with his son Piyush aged 9 years at that time
were going on his motorcycle No. DL-115G-7580MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 6 of 44
Hero Splender for walking and when he going
towards his house via Tara Singh Chowk, Gandhi
Vihar in the meantime one Swift Car bearing no.
DL-6CQ7550 came from behind, driven by its
driver named Love Pandey/respondent no. 1 in a
rash and negligent manner, came from hind without
blowing any horn and hit the deponent from behind,
due to which the deponent along with his son and
motorcycle fell down on the road and received
injuries, and due to the injuries caused in the siad
accident the deponent called his brother who came
on spot and then the brother of deponent as well as,
the respondent no. 1 himself taken the
deponent/injured as well as his son in Trauma
Centre, Civil Lines and admitted them and thereafter
the respondent no. 1/driver fled away along with his
car from Trauma Centre, Civil Lines. However, on
the statement of deponent the above said case FIR
has been registered. Copy of entire DAR is Ex.
PW-1/2 (Colly.)
3. That the deponent was medically examined vide
MLC No. 778/23. Copy of MLC is Ex. PW-1/3.
And son of deponent was also medically examined
vide MLC No. 779/23. Copy of MLC of son of
deponent is Ex. PW-1/4. The deponent received
multiple fracture injuries on his left leg and multiple
abrasions over all part of her body. Similarly, the
son of the deponent also received injuries and
stitches were don on his left leg, on injured part and
he also received abrasions over his all part of body.
The deponent remained indoor patient upto
19.04.2023. The deponent remained as outdoor
patient and under treatment of Govt. as well as
private Hospital for further about 7 months and spent
more than Rs. 5,50,000/- on his as well as his son
medical treatment, medicines, diet, conveyance etc.
etc. after taking huge loan of around 4,00,000/- and
paying interest Medical treatment
papers/bills/documents are Ex. PW-1/3 (Colly.) the
deponent further says that the vehicle of the
deponent also badly damaged and Rs. 20,000/- were
spent on the repair of the said vehicle.
4. That the said accident took place only due to the
sole rash and negligent driving on the part of theMACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 7 of 44
respondent no. 1 who driven the offending vehicle at
a very fast speed and in rash and negligent manner
due to which the deponent and his son received
injuries. If the respondent no. 1 took precaution and
drove the vehicle at a normal speed, the said
accident easily avoided and petitioner/deponent
would be deprived from grievous injuries. Hence
the accused/driver is liable to pay compensation to
the deponent. Moreover, the registered owner of the
said vehicle as well as insurance if any of the
offending vehicle are also jointly and severally liable
to pay compensation to the deponent. Even due to
the said accident and fracture injuries mother of the
deponent also gone under a traumatic shock and
suffered paralytic attack and still undergoing
treatment.
5. That deponent further says on oath that the
deponent I serving with Civil Defense Delhi Govt.
and getting salary of Rs. 24,000/- per month and
deponent also doing part time job and earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. The deponent remained
under plastered for about one year and deponent is
still under treatment and on bed from the date of
accident i.e. more than 15 months. The deponent
says that the deponent was deprived from his salary
for about 15 months.
6. That the deponent was just 29 years of age with
good health and physique at the time of said
accident, but on account of this impact, the deponent
has suffered with mental pain and agony and due to
fracture injuries he become slightly permanent
disabled and working capacity has been badly
reduced due to slightly disabled due to fracture
injury. The deponent suffered with mental pain and
agony. The deponent spent huge amount of
Rs.3,50,000/- on his medicines conveyance diet,
doctor fees, nutritious diet etc.
7. That I further say that I claim Rs. 10,00,000/-
(Rs. Ten Lacs only) on account of grievous fracture
injuries sustained in the said accident not only by
deponent but his sone also, mental pain and agony,
loss of estates, loss of dependency, loss of enjoyment
of life during confined to bed, loss of income duringMACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 8 of 44
confined to bed, loss of expenses incurred on his
treatment, medicines etc. loss of future benefits,
perspective income, and other special and general
damages as admissible under the law.”
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 13.04.2023 at
about 7.00 P.M., he along with his son Piyush aged 9 years was going on
his motorcycle No. DL-115G-7580 Hero Splender and when he was
going towards his house via Tara Singh Chowk, Gandhi Vihar, in the
meantime, one Swift Car bearing no. DL-6CQ7550 came from behind
which was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner,
without blowing any horn and hit them from behind, due to which he
along with his son and motorcycle fell down on the road and received
injuries. He also deposed that due to the said incident, he sustained
grievous injuries and his son Piyush also sustained injuries. The
deposition of PW-1 as to the manner of the accident and the driving of
the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no.1
remained unshaken during cross-examination of the said witness and in
fact was strengthened during the same.
13. On the other hand, respondent no.1 who was examined as
RW-1 deposed that no accident ever took place with his vehicle and he
has been falsely implicated in the present case due to collusion between
police and the petitioner to extort money. He has also deposed in his
cross-examination that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the
time of the alleged accident and that he does not know how to drive.
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 9 of 44
However, he has not examined any independent witness to prove that he
was not driving the offending vehicle or that he does not know how to
drive. Also, he has admitted in his cross examination that he was
arrested in this case and also that he has not filed any complaint against
the FIR lodged against him. Also, it cannot be denied that the respondent
no. 1 will depose so as to save him from criminal proceedings as well as
from paying compensation. Ld. Counsel for the respondents had argued
that at the time of alleged accident, respondent no. 1 was at home but he
has not led any evidence to prove the sane. The respondents have not
brought any convincing material on record to show that the accident did
not take place due to the fault of respondent no. 1 or that his vehicle was
not even present at the spot of accident or that respondent no. 1 was not
even driving the same.
14. Ld. Counsel for respondents argued that as per the
mechanical inspection report, there was no damage on the offending
vehicle which indicates that no accident took place. However, it is
imperative to point out that the accident took place on 13.04.2023 and
the mechanical inspection report is dated 22.05.2023. It is possible that
the respondents had got their vehicle fixed. The mechanical inspection
report being highly delayed cannot be relied upon to prove that no
accident took place with the offending vehicle.
15. Moreover, the petitioner had no prior acquaintance with
respondent no.1 before the accident, and it is undisputed that there
existed no pre-existing animosity between them. Therefore, it defies
every logic as to why the petitioner would falsely implicate respondent
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 10 of 44
no.1 if he was not the one driving the offending vehicle.
16. In view of the categorical 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 grievous injuries. In the MACT proceedings, the burden of
proof on the petitioner is even lighter than the balance of probabilities
and filing of chargesheet is a sufficient proof to tilt the balance in favour
of the petitioner/ injured. Therefore, in view of filing of DAR containing
the charge-sheet for the offences u/s 279/337/338 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 Amit @ Love Pandey (driver of the
offending vehicle) is held to be negligent on the basis of preponderance
of probability. From the DAR, it also stands established that the
offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2, Durgesh Pandey. The
said vehicle was not insured.
The injury:
17. The petitioner (PW-1) testified that due to the accident, he
sustained grievous injuries and suffered many fractures in his left leg.
He asserted that upon the accident, he was taken to Trauma Centre, Civil
Lines where he was treated vide MLC No.778/23 and the alleged history
has been mentioned as “road traffic accident”. He remained admitted in
Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi from date of accident i.e. 13.04.2023
to 19.04.2023 and thereafter, his further treatment is still going on.
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 11 of 44
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. 1959 dated 12.04.2024, it has been observed that the petitioner is a
case of “fuc of #BB Leg Left” and the Board was of the opinion that he
has 30 % permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower
limb.
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 DL-6CQ-7550 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 30 %
in relation to his left lower limb.
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
20. It has already been concluded in the preceding paragraphs
that the petitioner had suffered grievous injury and he has permanent
disability of 30 % in relation to his left lower 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
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 12 of 44
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 he
suffered as a result of such injury. This means that
he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full
life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities
which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries,
and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn
or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer
vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D.
Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. – 1995 (1)
SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby – 1970 AC 467).
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;
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 13 of 44
(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 item
(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
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 14 of 44
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
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
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 15 of 44
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
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).
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 16 of 44
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 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
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 17 of 44
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 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
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 18 of 44
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.
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
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 19 of 44
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
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
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 20 of 44
suffered 30 % disability in relation to his left lower limb. It has also
been proved that the petitioner was hospitalised for the period w.e.f.
13.04.2023 to 19.04.2023 and from 28.08.2023 to 01.09.2023 and
thereafter, he took further treatment from government as well as private
hospitals. Thus, his compensation is computed as follows:
Medical expenses:
24. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- towards medical
expenses in his Form XIV. In this regard, the petitioner has placed
reliance on the following original medical bills:
Table No. 1
Sl. Details of Bill Date Amount in Rs.
No.
1. Bill No. OPCA/23-24/2190 issued by 04.05.2023 500
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
2. Bill no. 2023240009 issued by Pradhan 08.05.2023 1447
Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendra
3. Bill no. 2023240039 issued by Pradhan 14.05.2023 511
Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendra
4. Bill no. 2023240076 issued by Pradhan 31.05.2023 921
Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendra
5. Bill no. 2023240167 issued by Pradhan 26.07.2023 488
Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendra
6. Bill no. 23-24/7952 issued by City 23.08.2023 381
Pharmacy
7. Bill no. 2023240236 issued by Pradhan 23.08.2023 550
Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendra
8. Receipt no. AD/23-24/15121 issued by 04.09.2023 50000
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
9. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/10164 issued Sir 04.09.2023 540
Ganga Ram City Hospital
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 21 of 44
10. Bill no. 23-24/57987 issued by City 04.09.2023 1378
Pharmacy
11. Bill no. 23-24/58026 issued by City 04.09.2023 529.80
Pharmacy
12. Bill no. AD/23-24/15151 issued by Sir 04.09.2023 50000
Ganga Ram City Hospital
13. Bill no. 23-24/58354 issued by City 05.09.2023 595
Pharmacy
14. Bill no. 23-24/58353 issued by City 05.09.2023 2637.44
Pharmacy
15. Bill no. 23-24/58368 issued by City 05.09.2023 11
Pharmacy
16. Bill no. 23-24/58387 issued by City 05.09.2023 49.68
Pharmacy
17. Bill no. 23-24/58427 issued by City 05.09.2023 551.20
Pharmacy
18. Bill no. 23-24/58431 issued by City 05.09.2023 170
Pharmacy
19. Bill no. 23-24/58435 issued by City 05.09.2023 2240
Pharmacy
20. Bill no. IPCA/23-24/10308 issued by Sir 06.09.2023 1,24,314
Ganga Ram City Hospital
21. Bill no. 23-24/8329 issued by City 06.09.2023 2655
Pharmacy
22. Bill no. 23-24/8808 issued by City 06.09.2023 257
Pharmacy
23. Bill no. 23-24/8926 issued by City 08.09.2023 163
Pharmacy
24. Bill no. 23-24/8931 issued by City 08.09.2023 32
Pharmacy
25. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/10442 issued by 08.09.2023 1400
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
26. Bill no. 23-24/9130 issued by City 12.09.2023 353
Pharmacy
27. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/10660 issued by 12.09.2023 1400
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
28. Bill no. 2023240238 issued by Pradhan 17.09.2023 465
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 22 of 44
Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendra
29. Bill no. 23-24/9130 issued by City 12.09.2023 138
Pharmacy
30. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/11142 issued by 19.09.2023 1900
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
31. Bill no. 2023240288 issued by Pradhan 23.09.2023 300
Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendra
32. Bill no. 23-24/9897 issued by City 25.09.2023 85
Pharmacy
33. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/10660 issued by 25.09.2023 1400
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
34. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/12058 issued by 03.10.2023 540
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
35. Bill no.23-24/10304 issued by City 03.10.2023 85
Pharmacy
36. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/12064 issued by 03.10.2023 1400
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
37. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/13492 issued by 25.10.2023 540
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
38. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/13501 issued by 25.10.2023 1000
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
39. Bill no. 2023240343 issued by Pradhan 06.11.2023 763
Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendra
40. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/15264 issued by 25.11.2023 540
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
41. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/15269 issued by 25.11.2023 1000
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
42. Invoice no. IN-4703 issued by 26.11.2023 369
Amazon.in sold by B Nation Groups
43. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/16584 issued by 18.12.2023 540
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
44. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/16589 issued by 18.12.2023 800
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
45. Bill no. IPCA/23-24/16931 issued by Sir 23.12.2023 23,374
Ganga Ram City Hospital
46. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/16923 issued by 23.12.2023 540
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 23 of 44
47. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/17476 issued by 02.01.2024 2000
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
48. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/19433 issued by 05.02.2024 540
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
49. Bill no. 2023240288 issued by Pradhan 05.02.2024 1538
Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendra
50. Invoice no. IN-116 issued by Amazon.in 06.02.2024 830
sold by Gold Circle Healthkare
51. Invoice no. IN-122 issued by Amazon.in 13.02.2024 830
sold by Gold Circle Healthkare
52. Bill no. OPCA/23-24/20517 issued by 20.02.2024 500
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
53. Bill no. 2023240682 issued by Pradhan 15.03.2024 660
Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendra
54. Bill no. 24138128 issued by Divine 02.04.2024 120
Multispeciality Hospital & Cancer
Centre
55. Bill no. OPCA/24-25/627 issued by Sir 08.04.2024 540
Ganga Ram City Hospital
56. Bill no. OPCA/24-25/634 issued by Sir 08.04.2024 500
Ganga Ram City Hospital
57. Bill no. OPCA/24-25/2902 issued by Sir 08.05.2024 500
Ganga Ram City Hospital
58. Bill no. OPCA/24-25/5165 issued by Sir 10.06.2024 540
Ganga Ram City Hospital
59. Bill no. OPCA/24-25/5172 issued by Sir 10.06.2024 500
Ganga Ram City Hospital
60. Bill no. OPCA/24-25/9526 issued by Sir 10.08.2024 540
Ganga Ram City Hospital
61. Invoice no. DSC/229/2024-25 issued by 09.09.2024 2363
Dinesh Surgical Company (India)
62. Bill no. OPCA/24-25/12389 issued by 17.09.2024 540
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
63. Bill no. OPCA/24-25/12390 issued by 17.09.2024 5500
Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital
64. Bill no. A001297 issued by Shradha 30.11.2023 372
Medicos
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 24 of 44
65. Bill no. A001360 issued by Shradha 11.12.2023 180
Medicos
66. Bill no. A001308 issued by Shradha 01.12.2023 180
Medicos
67. Bill no. A000966 issued by Shradha 28.09.2023 1046
Medicos
68. Bill no. A001494 issued by Shradha 04.01.2024 680
Medicos
69. Bill no. A001360 issued by Shradha 11.12.2023 180
Medicos
70. Bill no. S/24/000836 issued by Shradha 09.09.2024 1215
Medicos
71. Bill no. S/24/00085 issued by Shradha 17.09.2024 320
Medicos
72. Bill no. A001877 issued by Shradha 13.09.2023 2894
Medicos
73. Bill no. A001084 issued by Shradha 17.10.2023 35
Medicos
74. Bill no. A001133 issued by Shradha 26.10.2023 755
Medicos
75. Bill no. A001283 issued by Shradha 27.11.2023 360
Medicos
76. Bill no. A001402 issued by Shradha 18.12.2023 360
Medicos
77. Bill no. A000910 issued by Shradha 19.09.2023 1768
Medicos
78. Cash Memo No. 8950 issued by 04.05.2023 966
Gangaram Pharmacy
79. Bill no. A001796 issued by Shradha 26.02.2024 409
Medicos
80. Invoice No. 0000165 issued by 03.01.2024 385
P.M.B.J.K. (Pooja Medicos)
81. Invoice No. A001019 issued by 17.01.2024 292
P.M.B.J.K. (Pooja Medicos)
82. Invoice No. 0000165 issued by Jan 06.10.2023 370
Aushadhi Kendra
83. Invoice No. 2023240139 issued by Jan 12.10.2023 20
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 25 of 44
Aushadhi Kendra
84. Invoice No. 2023240191 issued by Jan 01.12.2023 225
Aushadhi Kendra
85. Invoice No. A0000908 issued by 11.12.2023 441
P.M.B.J.K. (Pooja Medicos)
86. Invoice No. A000864 issued by 27.11.2023 261
P.M.B.J.K. (Pooja Medicos)
87. Invoice No. 0000059 issued by 27.11.2023 402
P.M.B.J.K. (Pooja Medicos)
88. Invoice No. 0000351 issued by 27.03.2024 510
P.M.B.J.K. (Pooja Medicos)
89. Bill No. OB1920/33159 issued by 17.10.2023 100
Kayakalp Hospital
90. Bill No. OB1920/27483 issued by 19.04.2023 400
Kayakalp Hospital
91. Bill No. OB1920/39467 issued by 06.06.2024 750
Kayakalp Hospital
92. Bill No. A002187 issued by Kayakalp 08.09.2024 1320
Chemist
93. Bill No. A002191 issued by Kayakalp 09.09.2024 536
Chemist
94. Bill No. OB1920/42467 issued by 07.09.2024 500
Kayakalp Hospital
95. Bill No. R1920/71898 issued by 07.09.2024 200
Kayakalp Hospital
96. Bill No. OB1920/42469 issued by 08.09.2024 2300
Kayakalp Hospital
97. Bill No. 119/3DS0296831 issued by 03.01.2024 295.25
Apollo Pharmacy
98. Bill No. 18795DS0010791 issued by 02.03.2024 423.50
Apollo Pharmacy
99. Bill No. 11273DS0013091 6711- 03.01.2024 778.22
APOLLO247 issued by Apollo
Pharmacy
100. Bill No. 11273DCB0005272 5737- 06.09.2023 2180.34
TATA POWER DELHI DIST. issued by
Apollo Pharmacy
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 26 of 44
101. Bill No. 66041 issued by Janta Medical 08.05.2024 513
Store
102. Bill No. 62199 issued by Janta Medical 04.10.2023 286
Store
103. Bill No. 63670 issued by Janta Medical 27.12.2023 1130.60
Store
104. Bill No. 63615 issued by Janta Medical 23.12.2023 1131.21
Store
105. Bill No. 2599 issued by Dev Medicos 04.11.2023 600
106. Bill No. 354 issued by Naveen Medicos 06.10.2023 95
107. Bill No. 176 issued by Virat Medicos 24.01.2024 186
108. Bill No. 649 issued by Naveen Medicos 15.03.2024 816
109. Bill No. 601 issued by Naveen Medicos 17.02.2024 143.25
110. Bill No. 487 issued by Shri Balaji 11.09.2023 60
Medicos
111. Bill No. 471 issued by Shri Balaji 02.09.2023 585
Medicos
112. Bill No. 258 issued by Super Medicos 02.02.2024 181.30
113. Invoice No. 0000487 issued by 15.10.2023 225
P.M.B.J.K. (Pooja Medicos)
114. Bill No. OPCA24/63841 issued by 24.08.2023 960
Tirath Ram Shah Charitable Hospital
115. Bill No. 0009577 issued by The Chemist 31.03.2025 1185
116. Bill No. 23132034 issued by Divine 22.12.2023 1000
Multispeciality Hospital and Cancer
Center
117. Bill No. 23123987 issued by Divine 26.08.2023 660
Multispeciality Hospital and Cancer
Center
Total Rs. 3,30,875.11/-
25. Ld. Counsel for the respondents argued that the medical bills
have not been verified by the IO and therefore, the same cannot be
reimbursed. However, all the bills appear to be proper, thus, theMACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 27 of 44
petitioner Ashish Shukla is held entitled to Rs. 3,30,875.11/- towards
medical expenses.
Loss of income:
26. Coming to the aspect of loss of income, the petitioner
Ashish Shukla claimed that he was working with Delhi Government in
Civil Defence and was earning Rs. 24,000/- per month, but due to the
accident in question he could not work for one year and suffered
complete loss of earnings during that period. The petitioner has filed on
record his bank statement which shows that his salary was credited in
his account on the 7th of every month and in March, 2023, it was
Rs.20,575/-. Therefore, it stands proved that at the time of the accident
i.e. on 13.04.2023, the petitioner/ injured was earning Rs. 20,575/- per
month. Further, the petitioner has claimed that he was not able to work
for 1 year. 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 the Loss of Income for 06 months i.e.
Rs.20,575/- x 6 = Rs. 1,23,450/-.
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 saidMACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 28 of 44
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. 1,00,000/-
towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and Pysical Shock:
28. The petitioner/injured has claimed 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 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.1,00,000/-
towards mental shock to the petitioner.
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 grants compensation of Rs. 25,000/-
towards expenses incurred on special diet.
Conveyance charges:
30. The petitioner has claimed Rs.50,000/- under the head
conveyance charges but there is no cogent evidence for the same.
However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 29 of 44
injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must
have incurred some expense on conveyance. Hence, this Tribunal hereby
grants compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
31. 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 attendant. 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 grants compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards
expenses incurred as attendant charges.
Loss of amenities:
32. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 50,000/- under the head loss
of amenities. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the
injured/petitioner, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of
Rs.25,000/- under this head.
Disfiguration:
33. The petitioner has claimed Rs.50,000/- under the head
disfiguration and it has already been established that the injured had
suffered permanent disability. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grants
compensation of Rs.25,000/- under this head.
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 30 of 44
Future loss of income:
34. The petitioner Ashish Shukla has claimed loss of future
earning to the extent of Rs. 23,44,320/- in his Form XIV. It has already
been established that the petitioner has suffered 30 % disability in
relation to his left lower limb. Therefore, considering the record and the
nature of disability suffered by the petitioner, the functional disability of
the petitioner is assessed at 15 % in relation to the whole body for the
purposes of calculating the compensation.
35. It has already been concluded that the monthly income of
the petitioner at the time of the accident was Rs. 20,575/-. As per the
Aadhar Card bearing no. 5890 8166 6778, the date of birth of the
injured/ petitioner Ashish Shukla is 12.03.1994, thus, as on the date of
accident i.e. 13.04.2023, the petitioner was aged 29 years old.
Accordingly, the Multiplier of seventeen (17) 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 Ashish
Shukla shall be 40% as he was below the age of 40 years at the time of
accident on 13.04.2023.
36. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of
the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 20,575/-. In view of the above,
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 31 of 44
the loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as
under:
Monthly income Rs. 20,575/-
Annual Income Rs. 20,575/- x 12 =
Rs. 2,46,900/-
Add Future Prospects @40% Rs. 2,46,900 x 40% =
Rs. 98,760/-
Total income Rs. 2,46,900 + 98,700 =
Rs. 3,45,660/-
Disability @ 15% Rs. 3,45,660/- x 15%= Rs. 51,849/-
Loss of Income after multiplier (17) Rs. 51,489/- x 17 = Rs. 8,81,433/-
37. 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. 8,81,433/- under the head future loss of
income.
Future medical expenses:
38. The injured has claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- towards future
medical expenses, however, he has not filed any document to prove that
he needs such a huge amount towards future medical treatment. In the
case of Master Ayush v The Branch Manager, Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal nos. 2205-2206 of 2022),
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had devised a formula to calculate the
future medical expense. It had laid down that the injured would require
at least Rs. 1,000/- per month for his medical expense and accordingly,
the Hon’ble court held that the said amount be multiplied by 12 months
and then the multiplier to arrive at a reasonable figure regarding future
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 32 of 44
medical expense. Applying the said formula in the present case, the
petitioner shall be entitled to Rs.2,04,000/- (1000 x 12 x 17) towards
future medical expense.
Future attendant charges:
39. The injured has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- towards future
attendant charges, however, he has not filed any document to prove that
he needs such a huge amount towards future attendant charges. In fact,
he has not claimed any amount towards past expense on attendant
charges. However, in the case of Master Ayush (supra), Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India had devised a formula to calculate the future
attendant charges. It had laid down that the monthly expense on an
attendant can be fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month and accordingly, the
Hon’ble court held that the said amount be multiplied by 12 months and
then the multiplier to arrive at a reasonable figure regarding future
attendant charges. Applying the said formula in the present case, the
petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 4,08,000/- (2000 x 12 x 17) towards
future attendant charges.
Any other expense / conveyance charges for remaining life:
40. The injured has claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- towards future
conveyance charges for remaining life. Since, the petitioner/ injured has
suffered disability in his left leg, it cannot be denied that he would
require external conveyance to commute. Therefore, the petitioner is
held entitled to Rs. 2,00,000/- towards future conveyance charges.
41. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances,
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 33 of 44
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. 3,30,875.11/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 20,575/- Loss of income x 6 months Rs. 1,23,450/- Add future prospects Rs. 98,760/-
Loss of future income (income X % Rs. 8,81,433/-
Earning Capacity X Multiplier)
Any other loss/expenditure Nil.
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & 1,00,000 + 1,00,000=
Suffering Rs. 2,00,000/-
Special diet Rs. 25,000/-
Attendant charges Rs. 25,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
Disfiguration Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of Marriage prospects Nil.
Future Treatment Charges Rs. 2,04,000/-
Future Attendant Charges Rs. 4,08,000/-
Future Conveyance Charges Rs. 2,00,000/-
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil.
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
Total Rs. 24,72,758.11/-
(rounded off to Rs. 24,72,758/-)
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 34 of 44
42. 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. 17.07.2023 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
43. 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.30,000/- per month.
44. 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. 24,72,758/- (Rupees
Twenty Four Lacs Seventy Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty
Eight only), Rs. 4,72,758/- (Rupees Four Lacs Seventy Two Thousand
Seven Hundred and Fifty Eight only) plus entire interest amount be
released to the petitioner/claimant Ashish Shukla and the balance
amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) shall be put in 40
monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount
of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each for a period of 01
month to 40 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
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 35 of 44
residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
45. 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.
46. 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
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
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 36 of 44
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.
47. 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: 13.04.2023
2. Name of the Injured: Ashish Shukla
3. Age of the Injured: 29 years
4. Occupation of the Injured: Volunteer in Civil Defence
5. Income of the Injured: Rs. 20,575/-
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken: Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi
Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and Sir
Ganga Ram City Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization: 13.04.2023 to 19.04.2023 &
28.08.2023 to 01.09.2023.
9. Whether any permanent 30 %
disability?
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 37 of 44
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 3,30,875.11/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 25,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 25,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 20,575/-
(vi) Loss of income x 6 months Rs. 1,23,450/-
(vii) Add future prospects @40% Rs. 98,760/-
(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. 1,00,000 + 1,00,000=
physical shock Rs. 2,00,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 25,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration
Rs. 25,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil.
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 38 of 44
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 30% 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 15%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (income Rs. 8,81,433/
x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 24,72,758.11/-
1(i+ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+iii+iv) + (rounded off to Rs. 24,72,758/-)
3(iv)
5. Total Compensation Rs. 24,72,758/-
Interest awarded 6%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous
award passed by Ld. -
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 2,61,288.09/-
award w.e.f. 17.07.2023 (01 year
09 months and 04 days)
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 27,34,046.09/-
(rounded off to Rs.27,34,046/-)
. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 44
10. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para no. 44
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 39 of 44
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 44
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 21.05.2025
award
LIABILITY:
48. The offending vehicle was being driven and owned by
respondent no. 1 Amit @ Love Pandey and owned by respondent no. 2
Durgesh Pandey. Therefore, thus, both the respondents shall be jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the
petitioners and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
49. In view of the above, the respondent no.1 Amit @ Love
Pandey and respondent no. 2 Durgesh Pandey, are directed to deposit a
sum of Rs. 24,72,758/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Seventy Two
Thousand Seven Hundred & Fifty Eight only) along with interest @
6 % from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 17.07.2023 till realization
with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to
the claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay
interest @ 7.5 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
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.
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 40 of 44
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
21.05.2025 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).
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 RUCHI
Digitally signed
by RUCHI
on this 21st day of April, 2025
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL ASRANI
ASRANI Date: 2025.04.21
16:57:08 +0530
(Dr. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 41 of 44
FORM – XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1 Date of Accident 13.04.2023
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report Not available
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
to the victim(s) Not available
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
from the Driver Not available
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner Not available
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance Not available
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from Not available
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
Detail Accident Report 17.07.2023
(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 Without Insurance
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 42 of 44
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his N/A
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Designated N/A
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of N/A
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 21.04.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open
savings bank account(s) Yes.
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
card and Aadhar Card and 17.07.2023
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
18.03.2025
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 43 of 44
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 on 18.03.2025.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally signed
by RUCHI
RUCHI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL ASRANI
ASRANI Date:
2025.04.21
16:57:29 +0530
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
PO, MACT-01 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
21.04.2025
MACT No.628/2023 Ashish Shukla Vs. Amit @ Love Pandey & Anr. Page 44 of 44
[ad_1]
Source link