Delhi District Court
Mohd. Arif vs Prakash on 14 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.: 844/2018
FIR no. 402/2018
PS Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
U/s 279/338 IPC
CNR No.: DLSE01 007144-2018
Mohd. Arif Vs. Prakash & Ors.
Mohd. Arif
S/o Jameel Ahmad
R/o H. No. T-103 A, Ground Floor
Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi-110013.
Also at H. No. 794/4, Pillokhri Road, Shyam Nagar
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
.....Claimant
Versus
1. Prakash
S/o Sh. Ram Singh
R/o H. No. 137, Village
Akka Pandey Bhojpur,
PS Munda Pandey, Moradabad-244001.
.....R-1/ Driver
2. Rajiv Sangar
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 1 of 62
S/o Sh. Dharam Pal Sangar
R/o H. N O. 19, Shiv Vatika
Modi Towane Mal, Vijay Nagar
Jaitpur, Rajasthan.
.....R-2/ Owner
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
F-14, Bombay Life Building,
Connaught Place, New Delhi.
....R-3/ Insurance Co.
Date of accident : 05.04.2018
Date of filing of petition : 31.08.2018
Date of Decision : 14.07.2025
AWARD
1. Claim Petition:
1(a) This is a claim petition filed under Section 166 and 140
M.V. Act on 31.08.2018 by Mohd. Arif (hereinafter called the
claimant/ injured) on account of injuries suffered by him in a
Road Traffic Accident (RTA) with vehicle (Tanker) bearing Reg.
No. RJ 14GE 2340 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle),
driven by Sh. Prakash (hereinafter called R-1/ driver), owned by
Sh. Rajeev Sangar (hereinafter called R-2/ Owner), & insured
with M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter
referred as R-3/ Insurance Company).
2. Brief Facts:
2(a) On 05.04.2018 at around 11:00 PM, driver Mohd. Adil
along with pillion riders Mohd. Arif and Mohd. Javed were going
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 2 of 62
to his house located at Sarai Kale Khan from Noida on a
motorcycle bearing registration number DL-11SK-4322 at
normal speed and on correct side of the road which was impacted
by a milk tanker bearing registration No. RJ 14GE 2340, being
driven speedily and rashly, without blowing any horn and without
any lookout, as a result of which motorcycle toppled and all of
them sustained serious injuries. Injured Mohd. Arif was rushed to
Fortis Hospital, where he remained hospitalized for a day and his
MLC was also prepared. Thereafter, he remained admitted in
Lok Nayak Hospital for about 14 days where leg above knee was
amputated as part of the treatment. FIR was registered under
relveant provision of law. Investigations were undertaken.
Statement of witnesses were recorded. Mechanical Inspection of
the accidental vehicles was got done. Driver of the milk tanker
was charge sheeted for injuring the bikers on account of speedy
and rash driving on a public way.
2(b) It is stated that the claimant was earning livelihood as AC
Mechanic, drawing salary of Rs.18,500/- per month, however,
amputation has rendered him incapacitated to work as AC
Mechanic. It is stated that R-1 was driving the offending milk
tanker at the time of accident, which was owned and managed
by R-2 and insured with R-3/ Insurance Company. It is averred
that limb amputation has caused deep physical, mental,
psychological scars which cannot be compensated in terms of
money. It is accordingly asserted that all the three respondents
are responsible for compensating the victim against serious
injuries sustained in the accident. An amount of Rs. 50 lakhs has
been sought as compensation along with interest @ 12% per
annum.
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 3 of 62
3. Reply:
3(a) In Written Statement filed on behalf of R-1 & 2, it is stated
that the bikers themselves were tripling and were negligently
driving which caused the accident. The averments in the petition
were denied. It is submitted that R-1 plied the tanker at a normal
speed and was observant of the applicable traffic rules.
3(b) In Written Statement filed on behalf of insurance company,
it is stated that the bike driver carried more than one pillion rider
in violation of Sec. 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act which
constitutes contributory negligence to the tune of 30% on the part
of bike driver as well on the basis of judgment rendered in the
case of Manish Narayan Vs. Seema Bouri and Ors 2009
ACJ-2271 (Jharkhand). It is also asserted that the motorcycle
became disbalanced on account of tripling and not because of any
negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. The
validity and effectiveness of the insurance policy was conceded.
Other general defences were taken. Validity of the documents
pertaining to the offending vehicle as well as the driving license
of R-1 was also questioned.
4. Issues:
4(a) From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 22.07.2019:
i) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on
05.04.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.
RJ 14GE 2340, being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with
R-3? OPP.
ii). Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what
extent and from whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 4 of 62
5. Disability Assessment:
5(a) Disability Assessment Certificate was received as per
which injured was diagnosed with 80% permanent physical
impairment in relation to right lower limb (A/K Amputation).
6. Evidence:
6(a) Matter was then listed for Petitioner's Evidence. PW-1
Mohd. Arif tendered his evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He
relied upon following documents:
Ex.PW1/1- Medical treatment records
Ex.PW1/2- Medical bills amounting to Rs. 10,961/-
Ex.PW1/3- Disability certificate
Ex.PW1/4- Appointment letter cum salary certificate
Ex.PW1/5- 10th class marksheet and certificate
Ex.PW1/6- PAN Card
Ex.PW1/7- Aadhar Card
6(b) PW-1 was further cross examined by counsel for Insurance
Company as well as counsel for R-1 & 2.
6(c) No other evidence was led by claimant. Petitioner
Evidence was accordingly closed. Matter was then listed for
Respondent Evidence.
6(d) R1W1 Sh. Prakash tendered his evidentiary affidavit as
Ex.R1W1/A. He relied upon photocopy of Driving License as
Ex.R1W1/1 and certified copy of Insurance Policy already
Ex.R3W1/1. He was cross examined by counsel for claimant.
6(e). R2W1 Sh. Rajiv Sangar tendered his evidentiary affidavit
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 5 of 62
as Ex.R2W1/A. He was also cross examined by counsel for
claimant.
6(f) Insurance Company examined R3W1 Ms. Lalita Anand,
Administrative Officer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. She
tendered her evidentiary affidavit as Ex.R3W1/A and replied
upon copy of Insurance Policy as Ex.R3W1/1, permit as
Ex.R3W1/2, report of Regional Transport Authority as
Ex.R3W1/3, notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC as Ex.R3W1/4
and Postal receipts as Ex.R3W1/5.
6(g). Respondent Evidence was closed. Matter was then listed
for Final Arguments.
7. Final Arguments:
7(a) Final Arguments were advanced by the contesting
counsels.
7(b) Counsel for the claimant argued that the injured is in a
deplorable medical condition having been rendered majorly
disabled with right lower limb above knee amputation. Counsel
for claimant argued that the claimant is not in a position to even
perform daily routine work and cannot sit, stand or work
independently without help. Therefore, he is incapacitated to earn
his living. Counsel for petitioner further argued that petitioner
permanently would be needing assistance for carrying out even
his daily activities. It is also stated that petitioner has been
medically advised to procure artificial limb. He also stated that
the petitioner has been destined to live with agony and trauma for
the rest of his life. It is prayed that 100% functional disability in
relation to whole body must be considered keeping in view the
seriousness and nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner.
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 6 of 62
Counsel for claimant relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court titled as Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand Civil Appeal No.
735/2020. It is accordingly prayed that claim petition filed by the
respondent must be allowed and compensation as per legal
applicable provision must be awarded in favour of petitioner.
7(c) Written Submissions were filed by counsel for R-1 & R-2.
It is stated that the bike got disbalanced on account of tripling as
two pillion riders were riding on the motorcycle at the time of
accident. It is contended that the offending vehicle was not
involved in the accident at all. It is also stated that R-1 was
driving the vehicle at a normal speed as per applicable traffic
rules. It is stated that R-1 had a valid driving license at the time
of accident and offending vehicle was duly insured with the R-3.
It is pointed out that only two injured persons out of three filed
the claim petition which puts the entire projected case in doubt. It
is stated that there is no clause in the insurance policy which
entitles R-3/ Insurance Company to avoid liability on the basis of
expiry of permit before the date of accident. It is submitted that
R-2, being owner of the offending vehicle had applied for
issuance of permit on 02.04.2018 which was renewed on
06.04.2018 which would not be construed as invalid on the date
of accident in issuance of the same also as the validity of permit
is presumed from the date of expiry of the permit and not from
the date of issuance and thus insurance company cannot deny the
claim on the ground that the offending vehicle was being run
without permit. Counsel for R-1 & 2 has relied on Section 81 (5)
of the Motor Vehicles Act and submitted that very purpose of
obtaining the permit was to carry the goods, however, there were
no goods loaded in the vehicle at the time of accident and
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 7 of 62
therefore, insurance company cannot take advantage of the
intervening period of renewal of permit. It is pointed out that
Respondent has got the permit renewed from time to time,
however, provision of Sec. 81(5) MV Act provides that renewal
of permit should be read from the date of expiry. It is pointed out
that the fee of Rs. 16,500/- was already paid for renewal of
permit for a period of one year. It is also pointed out that the said
fee is for the duration starting from 02.04.2018 till 02.04.2019. It
is also pointed out that the clearance of documents and
processing of permit does consume period of 3-4 days and thus
R-2 cannot be faulted for being without permit during the
intervening period. It is stated that R-2 has fulfilled the obligation
as required. It is asserted that even though fee of Rs. 16,500/-
was deposited on 06.04.2018,however, the amount deposited has
to be considered for entire one year period and thus validity of
permit should be counted / read from 02.04.2018 to 02.04.2019.
It is stated that R-2 has always applied for and obtained the
permit within stipulated time frame. R-1 & 2 has prayed that the
entire liability of paying compensation is upon R-3/ Insurance
Company as the validity of the insurance policy has been duly
admitted. They relied upon the Judgment in case of Dr.
Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Vs. Banu Begum, First Appeal
No.202022/2016 and Manish Narayan Vs. Seema Bouri & Ors.
2009 ACJ -2271 (Jharkhand).
7(d) Written Submissions on behalf of R-3/ Insurance Company
was also filed wherein validity of the insurance policy has been
conceded. Counsel for insurance company also conceded that the
petitioner is entitled for minimum wages as applicable in the
Delhi as on the date of accident. It is further submitted that
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 8 of 62
contributory negligence to the tune of 30% must be deducted as
more than 2 pillion riders were being carried on the motorcycle
in violation of the Sec. 128 of Motor Vehicles Act which had put
the safety of driver as well as the pillion rider in peril. It is also
asserted that the offending vehicle had no permit as on the date of
accident as per the report of RTO, Jagatpura, Jaipur and thus
insurance company is entitled to recovery rights against the
owner. Counsel for insurance company placed reliance upon the
judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs.
Ram Pher & Anr First Appeal from Order no. 349/2002.
8. Discussion:
8(a) On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on
05.04.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.
RJ 14GE 2340, being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with
R-3? OPP.
8(b) PW-1 / injured Mohd. Arif affirmed that on 05.04.2018 at
about 11 PM, while he as pillion rider along with his brother in
law Mohd. Adil/ driver of motorcycle and Mohd. Javed also as
pillion rider were commuting by motorcycle bearing Reg. No.
DL 11SK 4322, being driven at a normal speed on correct side of
the road that the motorcycle was impacted by speedily and rashly
driven milk tanker bearing Reg. No. RJ 14GE 2340 near Rahul
Vihar Mod with great force on account of which the motorcycle
toppled and all of them fell down on the road. During cross
examination by counsel for R-1 & R-2, he stated that the
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 9 of 62
motorcycle was being plied at speed of about 30-40 kmph. He
also specified that he as well as driver of the motorcycle were
wearing the helmets while Javed who was sitting as one of the
pillion rider was without helmet. He also pointed out that
offending vehicle had hit the motorcycle twice from the back
side. During cross examination by counsel for insurance
company, he stated that Adil was driving the vehicle on the date
of accident whereas he along with Javed were sitting as pillion
rider. He admitted that the only one pillion rider is permitted to
be seated while there were two pillion riders being plied the time
of accident. He declined the suggestion that the accident took
place on account of negligence on the part of motorcycle as it got
disbalanced on account of two pillion riders seated on it. Similar
deposition in respect of specifics and the manner of the accident
has also been made by Mohd. Adil in the connected claim
petition.
8(c) R-1 / driver of the offending vehicle testified that there
were two pillion riders seated on the motorcycle because of
which it lost balance and caused accident. He also asserted that
the accident resulted only on account of negligent driving by
motorcyclist. He asserted that he was driving the milk tanker at a
normal speed at the time of accident. During cross examination
by counsel for claimant, he admitted that he was behind wheels
on offending vehicle at the time of accident and the FIR under
relevant legal provisions was lodged against him. He admitted
that he never filed any complaint alleging false implication in the
present matter.
8(d) R2W1 Rajeev Sehgal also appeared in the witness box and
admitted that he was not the eye witness of the case, however,
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 10 of 62
that Prakash was driving the vehicle at the time of accident who
was arrested in this case. He also admitted that he never filed any
complaint with the police officials in respect of wrongful
identification or involvement of the offending vehicle.
8(e) FIR was registered next day post accident wherein the
registration number and make of the offending vehicle were duly
specified. R-1 has admitted that the accident took place with the
offending vehicle and that he was behind wheels at the time of
accident.
8(f) About mode and manner of the accident, R-1 deposed that
he was driving the milk tanker at normal speed on correct side of
the road whereas the tripling bikers were negligent and lost
balance. He also deposed that the bike had rather hit the milk
tanker twice and not vice versa. The affirmation on the face of it
that the bike had hit the milk tanker twice because of which they
fell down and sustained injuries do not inspire confidence.
Considering the point of collision reflected in site plan, above
affirmation cannot be satisfactorily explained or clarified. This
affirmation was not even put to the injured during cross
examination by counsel for R-1 & R-2, for him to explain the
factual circumstances of the accident. The affirmation by R-1
rather appears to be nothing more than a failed attempt to
discredit the deposition of injured about mode and manner of the
accident. PW-1 has categorically stated that the milk tanker was
being driven very speedily and rashly, thereby forcefully
impacted the bike driven ahead on the road. The nature of
injuries sustained by the two victims and Mechanical Inspection
Report specially that of accidental vehicle also corroborate with
the deposition made by PW-1. Site plan filed as part of charge
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 11 of 62
sheet also reflect upon the specification of accident and is
explanatory of nature and extent of damages sustained by
motorcycle also falsifies the contentions on the part of
respondents that bike had disbalanced on account of tripling and
not because it was impacted by offending vehicle. No impact of
collision has been recorded for offending vehicle however
considering that it is a heavy vehicle having collided with
motorcycle, do not raise any doubt about the factum of accident.
8(g) It is evident that the forceful impact of the milk tanker had
disbalanced the bike leading to serious injuries to its riders.
8(h). R-1 has been charge sheeted for causing injury to victim
due to speedy and rash driving of the offending vehicle. It is
settled that filing of charge sheet itself is a significant step
towards the inference of negligence on the part of driver of the
offending vehicle. (Support drawn from the Judgment in the case
of National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287
Delhi as referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr SLP (C)
No. 10351/2019).
8(i) It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in
motor accident cases should be determined based on the
preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a broad
and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings under the
Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil suits and are
not strictly governed by the technical rules of the Indian
Evidence Act. This view has been supported in the judgments of
Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation &
Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 530; Kaushnumma Begum & Ors. v. New
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 12 of 62
India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 421 (SC); and National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287.
8(j) It is evident that the motorcycle was knocked by speeding
milk tanker which itself reflects reckless driving on the part of
driver of the milk tanker. It is thus held that R-1 as driver of the
offending vehicle caused the accident due to speedy and rash
driving of the said offending vehicle. Issue No.1 is decided in
favour of claimant and against the respondents.
9. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
9(a) Counsel for R-1 & 2 as well as Counsel for Insurance
Company have argued that the accident occurred due to
negligence of riders of motorcycle as they were tripling on the
said motorcycle which might have caused imbalance due to
which it toppled thereby injuring the riders. There is no evidence
to suggest that the vehicle was not knocked by the milk tanker or
that it lost balance on its own because of triple riding. There is
also no evidence that the motorbike would not have toppled
despite collision, had there not been any triple riding. It is settled
that the negligence can be attributed upon victim only if there is
some evidence that the victim could have acted to avert the
accident. Therefore, any act on the part of victim must have a
causal connection with the happening of the accident. As stated
above, the accident happened on account of speeding Milk
Tanker having impacted the motorcycle and not due to triple
riding having disbalanced the motorbike and therefore, the
contention of attributing contributory negligence on the part of
victim/ riders of the motorcycle has no basis and thus rejected.
(Support drawn from the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Mohammed Siddique vs National
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 13 of 62
Insurance Company Ltd AIR 2020 Supreme Court 520, wherein
similar fact in issue were deliberated upon).
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP"
"The determination of quantum must be liberal, not
niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free
country in generous scales"
{as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Concord of India Insurance Company Limited v Nirmala Devi
(1979 )4SCC 365}
10. Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an
inquiry into the claim to determine the compensation payable and
pass an award. Relevant portion of Section 168 MV Act which is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the
application to the insurer and after giving the parties
(including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold
an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of
the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162
may make an award determining the amount of
compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying
the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid
and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or
driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or
any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such
application makes a claim for compensation under section
140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of
any person, such claim and any other claim (whether
made in such application or otherwise) for compensation
in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be
disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 14 of 62
X.
.
.
.
11. “….Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been
battered.” {as observed in the case of H. West and Son Limited v
Shephard 1958 -65 ACJ 504 (HL, England)}. It recognizes that
the physical damage caused once cannot be fully undone.
Something which remains as an indelible permanent signs of an
unfortunate incident cannot be balanced merely by paying some
monetary compensation. The process of damage and the ugly
scars left on physical body and mental self, navigating through
the entire process post accident and the unintended but
compulsory turns that it brings in the course of life is indeed
painful and traumatic. It is also required to be underlined that the
damage is not restricted to the tangible injuries visible on the
body of the injured rather catapults the lives of his family
members also.
12. The assessment or grant of compensation is a small
attempt to render assistance to the injured to navigate through the
hairpin unanticipated sudden and traumatic turn in order to bring
some elbow space for him to move towards stability and
normalcy to the extent possible. The underlying principle
remains thus to make good the damage so far as possible as
equivalent in money.
13. Section 168 MV Act puts an obligation over Tribunal to
assess ‘just’ compensation with the object of putting the sufferer
in the same position as nearly as possible as he would have been
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 15 of 62
if he had not sustained the wrong. It is worthwhile to reproduce
certain observations made by Karnataka High Court in the case
of K. Narasimha Murthy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd ILR 2004
KAR 2471 as referred and relied in the case of Rekha Jain v
National Insurance Company Limited Civil Appeal No. 5370-
5372 of 2013 which enumerates the milestones to be kept in
mind by the Tribunal in an endevour to assess just compensation,
at the same time acknowledging that any amount of money
cannot compensate fully an injured man or completely renew a
shattered human physical frame as under:
“16. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while
assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant
circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing
quantification of compensation. Further, they have to approach
the issue of awarding compensation on the larger perspectives of
justice, equity and good conscience and eschew technicalities in
the decision-making. There should be realisation on the part of
the Tribunals and Courts that the possession of one’s own body
is the first and most valuable of all human rights, and that all
possessions and ownership are extensions of this primary right,
while awarding compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury
is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to
damages. The amount of damages varies according to gravity of
injuries.”
14. It is also settled that the monetary assessment is a
methodology known to law as social and legal security to a
victim even though the nature of injuries and the individual
ramifications might vary in different cases, therefore, it is
understandable that one remedy cannot heal all. Further, the loss
is in the nature of deprivation and it is unlike a personal asset
with a price tag which can be simply awarded and therefore,
complete accuracy in making such assessment is not humanly
possible. The endevour is thus to make an assessment as best and
as fair as possible under the given circumstance. The uncertainty
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 16 of 62
of bringing justness to an assessment has been recognized, still
holding that substantial damages must be awarded. The
observations made by Lord Halsbury in the case of Mediana In re
1900 AC 113 (HL) give valuable insights into the aspect and
reproduced as under:
“……Of course the whole region of inquiry into
damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often
cannot even lay down any principle upon which you
can give damages; nevertheless it is remitted to the
jury or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider
what compensation in money shall be given for what is
a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary
case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in
money counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by
any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact
amount of money which would represent such a thing
as the pain and suffering which a person has
undergone by reason of an accident……. But
nevertheless the law recognises that as a topic upon
which damages may be given”
15. The uncertainty involved has also been recognized by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Jain (supra)
where observations of Lord Blacburn in the case of Livingstone v
Rawyards Coal Company were referred as under:
“…….where any injury is to be compensated by
damages, in settling the sum of money to be given…
you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of
money which will put the party who has been injured..
in the same position as he would have been if he had
not sustained the wrong….”
16. It is further observed by their Lordship in the case of
Rekha Jain (supra) as follows:
“41…..Besides, the Court is well advised to remember
that the measures of damages in all these cases ‘should
be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he
had amply atoned for his misadventure’. The
observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to
the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary
society would deem to be a fair sum, such as wouldMACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 17 of 62
allow the wrongdoer to ‘hold up his head among his
neighbours and say with their approval that he has
done the fair thing’ is quite opposite to be kept in mind
by the Court in assessing compensation in personal
injury cases.”
17. It is also settled that the compensation is not granted only
for the physical injury but for the entire loss which results from
the injury in an endevour to place the victim in a position as close
as possible as prior to the accident (support drawn from National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017) 16
SCC 680 also in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar Civil Appeal No.
8981 of 2010). It is also settled as held in catena of judgments
that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation
and the object of the Tribunal ought to be to assist the injured
persons, (support drawn from Helen C Rebello (Mrs) & Ors. v.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr (1999) 1
SCC 90).
18. It is settled that an injured is required to be compensated
for his inability to lead full life, his inability to enjoy those
natural 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 (support drawn from judgment of C.K.
Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 SC 376 as
further referred and relied in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and
then in a recent pronouncement of Sidram v The Divisional
Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr., arising out of
SLP (Civil) no. 19277 of 2018.
19. What is required of the Tribunal is to attempt objective
assessment of damages as nearly as possible without fanciful or
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 18 of 62
whimsical speculation even though, some conjecture specially in
reference of the nature of disability and it consequence would be
inevitable. {support drawn from Raj Kumar (supra) as referred
and relied in Sidram (supra).
20. Observing that a measure of damages cannot be arrived
with precise mathematical calculations and that much depends
upon peculiar facts and circumstances of any matter, Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India elaborated upon the expression “which
appears to it to be just” in the case of Divisional Controller,
KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197. The
relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced here for ready
reference:
“15. ……It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss
of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily
injury is nothing but a deprivation which entitles the claimant to
damages. The quantum of damages fixed should be in
accordance with the injury. An injury may bring about many
consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental
pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes
entitled to damages for mental and physical loss, his or her life
may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life,
which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. The
normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time it
has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to
be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate
that the compensation must be “just” and it cannot be a
bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a
pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the
various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which
should be just. What would be “just” compensation is a vexed
question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for
measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of
damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical
calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and
circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any.
Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has
to be considered in the background of “just” compensation
which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the
expression “which appears to it to be just”, a wide discretion is
vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to beMACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 19 of 62
done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims,
wild guesses and arbitrariness.. …”
21. The observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of K. Suresh v New India Assurance Company
Limited (2012) 12 SCC 274 provide valuable insights into the
factors to be weighed by the Tribunal for determination of
quantum of compensation, the relevant extract of which is
reproduced as under:
“10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority,
while determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in
view the sufferings of the injured person which would include
his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal
amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and
his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have
earned. Hence, while computing compensation the approach of
the Tribunal or a court has to be broad- based. Needless to say, it
would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any
mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the
quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the
fundamental criterion of “just compensation” should be
inhered.”
22. The compensation has been broadly delineated as
pecuniary and non pecuniary in the case of R. D. Hattangadi v
Pest Control India Pvt Ltd. 1995 AIR 755, it is worthwhile to
reproduce certain observations made therein:
“9….while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of
money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likelyMACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 20 of 62
to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the
loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of
matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able
to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of
life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the
person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship,
discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in
life.”
23. The issue of determination of compensation in a personal
injury matter was extensively deliberated by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) Relevant extract
of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder for further
discussion:
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
medicines, transportation, 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
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 21 of 62
account of permanent disability, future medical expenses,
loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and
loss of expectation of life.
7. 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. Decisions
of this Court and the 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.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES
24. Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves
reimbursement of actual amount spent on account of injury
suffered in an accident to undo the monetary loss, suffered by the
claimant, as ascertainable from the evidence on record. Given
hereunder are various heads under which compensation for
pecuniary damages is assessed:
24 (a). Expenditure on Medical Treatment:
(i) The medical records establish that the injured suffered a
Grade 3C fracture of the proximal tibia and fibula with fracture
of the femoral condyle, resulting in vascular compromise
(Popliteal vessel involvement), and his right above-knee was
amputated. The injured has placed on record medical expenditure
on record as Ex.PW1/2, amounting to Rs. 10,961/-, along with a
computation. A further sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded under the
as sundry/miscellaneous expenses. Accordingly, the injured is
awarded a total amount of Rs. 20,961/- (Rs. 10,961/- + Rs.
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 22 of 62
10,000/-) towards medical expenditure.
24(b). Expenditure on Conveyance:
(i) Claimant has stated that he incurred an expenditure of
Rs.30,000/- on conveyance. However, no documentary proof or
bills have been placed on record in support of this claim.
Considering the nature of injury which resulted in amputation of
the right leg, it is evident that the injured would have required
repeated visits to hospitals, including travel for follow-up
treatment. Given the mobility limitations and practical difficulties
in public transport under such circumstances, a sum of
Rs.30,000/- is reasonable to be awarded towards conveyance
expenses.
24(c) Expenditure on Special Diet:
(i) The claimant has stated that he spent Rs.30,000/- on
special diet. However, no bills have been placed on record in
support of this claim. Considering the nature of injuries, which
involved major surgery and above-knee amputation, it is evident
that the body would have required a nutritious and protein-rich
diet to aid in wound healing and overall recovery. As reflected in
the record, the claimant remained under treatment for
approximately two and a half months. A proper and balanced diet
would have been essential to regain strength and facilitate
rehabilitation. In view of the nature of injuries and the extended
recovery period, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards
expenditure on special diet.
24(d) Expenditure for attendant:
(i) The claimant has stated that he spent Rs. 50,000/- towards
attendant charges and further contended that he would require aMACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 23 of 62
full-time attendant in the future as well. Considering the nature of
the injury and above knee amputation in right leg, it is quite
understandable that he would have needed assistance during
hospitalization or post-surgery care and further in the extended
recovery period. Even though he is being compensated under a
separate head for a prosthetic limb, it is well known that artificial
limbs, while helpful, do not fully restore the natural functioning
of a leg. There will always be some physical limitations.
Climbing stairs, walking on uneven surfaces, balancing, or
standing for long durations will remain a challenge. In such
circumstances, the support of an attendant, even if it is a family
member, becomes a necessity. It is also a settled principle that
compensation under this head is payable even when the attendant
is a family member and no direct payment is made. The time and
effort given by a relative still hold value and cannot be ignored.
Keeping in mind the permanent nature of the disability, the
claimant’s limited mobility, and the likely continued need for
support in daily life, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- appears
reasonable to be awarded under the head of attendant charges
keeping in view the future compulsion of his dependency upon
attendant to be able to lead a wholesome life.
24(e) Loss of earning during the period of treatment:
(i) PW-1 deposed that he was employed as an AC Technician
with NR-Aircom Solution, and was drawing a monthly salary of
Rs. 17,500/-. He further stated that, in addition to the fixed salary,
he used to earn extra income through commission and overtime,
which brought his total monthly earnings to approximately Rs.
35,000/- at the time of the accident. During cross-examination, he
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 24 of 62
stated that his salary was paid entirely in cash and that he never
received any payment via cheque. He further deposed that
approximately 20-25 individuals were employed in the said
company and he used to carry out AC repairs, and the payments
collected from customers were handed over to the owner, who in
turn paid him in cash. He relied upon an Appointment Letter
issued in the year 2016 (Ex. PW1/4), which clearly mentions his
salary as Rs. 17,500/- per month. He also filed a copy of his High
School Certificate. The minimum wages for a matriculate in
Delhi at the time of the accident were Rs. 16,858/-, which is
slightly lower than his stated salary. There is no reason to
disbelieve the salary reflected in the appointment letter. However,
no documentary evidence has been placed on record to
substantiate the additional income claimed towards overtime and
commission. Therefore, his monthly income is considered as Rs.
17,500/-.
(ii) Injured remained hospitalized for about 16 days post
accident and then continued treatment as an outpatient in Lok
Nayak Hospital for the next few months. Considering the nature
and severity of the injury, along with the medical treatment
records placed on record, it can reasonably be presumed that the
injured would have been unable to resume work for a period of at
least six months.
Thus his loss of income is calculated to be Rs.17,500/- x 6 =
Rs.1,05,000/-
24(f) Loss of future earning
(i) It is settled that a person is required to be compensated not
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 25 of 62
just for the physical injury but also for the loss he has suffered as
well as the loss which he might entail for the rest of his life on
account of those injuries which he sustained in the accident. This
necessarily means that he is required to be compensated for his
inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy normal
amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the injury, his
inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
(Support drawn from the judgment titled as C. K. Subramania
Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair (1969) 3 SCC 64.
(ii) Disability Assessment Certificate was received as per
which he was opined to have suffered 80% permanent physical
disability in right lower limb with above knee amputation.
(iii) Before proceeding further, it is important to understand as
to what disability means and also types thereof. This aspect has
been delved into by Hon’ble SC in Raj Kumar (supra):
“8. 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 accident 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 (“the Disabilities Act”,
for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i)MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 26 of 62
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.”
(iv) The term ‘disability’ means the decrements to the
functional efficacy of body of injured whereas ‘functioning’
encompass all the body functions and activities for an
independent life. Functional disability is to determine the extent
of loss or extent of restrictive functionality considering the nature
of activities required to be necessarily performed in efficient
discharge of duties and the limb effected. This computes the
extent of adverse effect of physical disability upon the functional
efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his
earning capacity. The process entails understanding and
enumerating the skill set required for performing specific
activities. To sum up, functional disability basically measures the
extent of ability having been compromised to carry out basic
everyday tasks or even more complex tasks required for and
independent living. The limitations may occur on account of
disability in the personal sphere, in the social sphere and in the
occupational sphere. In the personal sphere it may encompass the
daily activities of a person, his body function and his
involvement in basis life situations. At the societal level, it could
mean difficulty in involvement and participation in social and
community activities interfering the interpersonal interaction and
relationship adversely impacting the civic life. When disability
restricts the vocation or employment avenues to make earning for
his living, it falls in the category of disability in the occupational
sphere. The disability might occur on account of age or any
illness and in the case at hand by way of an accident. A person
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 27 of 62
living a normal life in particular set of circumstance and making
his living by engaging in any work has suffered disability which
might impead his daily life activities, both on a personal and
social scale and might also impact his ability to continue earning
as much as before and his future employment avenues.
(v) What is thus required to be assessed is the effect and
impact of disability upon the working efficiency of injured and
whether it would adversely impact his earning capabilities in
future. It is settled that the Tribunal should not mechanically
apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of
economic loss or loss of earning capacity.
(vi) Hon’ble SC laid down certain guidelines for the Tribunal
to be able to arrive at an objective figure to quantify the loss for
the purpose of computing the compensation in the judgment of
Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant extracts of this judgment for the
purpose of further discussion are reproduced hereunder:
“Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability
9. 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%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 28 of 62
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, the 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.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of
the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured;
and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms 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 the 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 v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010)
10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298]
and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10
SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. 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
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 29 of 62
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.
13. 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 disability (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.
.
.
.
.
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from
injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to
the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the
percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently,
the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as
the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few
cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence,
concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is
the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who
examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the
extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity
is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal
with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons,MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 30 of 62
depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job,
age, education and other factors.”
(vii) Further in the case of “Mohan Soni v Ram Avtar Tomar &
Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC), the question at hand was deliberated
and following observations as relevant in the context were made:
“In the context of loss of future earning, any physical
disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with
reference to the nature of work being performed by the
person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and
once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or
loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take
the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work
himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the
puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of
transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country.
The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or
the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road
insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of
a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the
loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg
(or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to
have very traumatic effects on one’s personal, family or
social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working
in the office would not interfere with his work/earning
capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal
farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.
(viii) The question of assessment of impact of disability on the
earning capacity has been dealt in several cases but it is
understood that each case has to be evaluated on its contextual
dynamics established by way of evidence at hand. It brings us to
a question whether extent of permanent disability as medically
determined can simply be taken to be the extent of functional
disability and hence, the loss of earning capacity. It has been held
in various pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
and Hon’ble High Court that equating the two as a criteria would
result in an inobjective and absurd compensation. There however,
might be certain cases where the two would correspond to each
other but it cannot be mechanically applied rather requires
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 31 of 62
evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to
reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity.
(ix) In the case of Raj Kumar (supra), the physical functional
disability of left leg was assessed to be 75% and total body
disability at 37.5 %. In this case, functional disability was also
assessed at 75% and it was observed that the extent of physical
functional disability has to be considered so as to grant just and
proper compensation towards loss of future earning as the
earning capacity of injured was totally negated having been
rendered incapable of doing any manual work. It was also held
that if permanent disability in relation to particular limb renders
the injured permanently disabled from pursuing his normal
vocation or any other similar work, there is no reason as to why
compensation should be granted on the basis of physical
disability in relation to whole body. In another matter of Syed
Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India AIR 2014
SUPREME COURT 1052, where functional disability was
considered to be 65% by Hon’ble High Court in case of a
vegetable vendor whose right leg had to be amputated was set
aside and it was observed that loss of limb is often equivalent to
loss of livelihood specially in manual labour cases and
determined the functional disability at 85%. In another matter of
Arvind Kumar Mishra, injured suffered grievous injuries and
remained in coma for about 2 months and was held to be
permanently disabled to the extent of 70 per cent with his right
hand amputated whereas his loss of earning capacity was held to
be 90%. Similarly in case of K Janardhan v United India
Insurance Company AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2384, Hon’ble
Supereme Court of India, held that a tanker driver suffered 100%
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 32 of 62
functional disability and incapacity to earn as a tanker driver as
his right leg was amputated from the knee. In the case of Pappu
Deo Yadav v Naresh Kumar, MAC App. 117/2018, injured
suffered loss of an arm and therefore, was unable to carry out his
functions as a typist / data entry operator and thus acknowledging
the impact of injury upon the income generating capacity of
victim, the extent of functional disablement and loss of income
generating earning capacity was equated with the extent of
permanent disablement as medically assessed at 89%. Similarly,
in the case of Sidram (supra), injured suffered paraplegia due to
accident and was medically assessed with permanent disability to
the tune of 45%, however, he was held to have suffered 100%
loss of earning capacity.
(x) PW-1 / injured has claimed that he was working as an AC
Technician with M/s NR-AIRCOM Solution. As per the
Disability Certificate on record, he has suffered 80% permanent
physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb due to
above-knee amputation. The nature of the injury is such that it
severely restricts his mobility and ability to perform physically
demanding tasks, which formed an essential part of his job. An
AC Technician is required to frequently climb stairs, ladders,
rooftops, and access confined or elevated spaces to repair and
install air-conditioning units. Such tasks demand strength,
balance, and physical agility. The amputation of the right leg
above the knee causes substantial challenges in walking,
climbing, standing, and maintaining balance for prolonged
durations, thereby disabling him from carrying out his
professional duties. Although he may still be able to perform
certain limited-mobility tasks, it is settled that the injured cannot
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 33 of 62
be compelled to change his nature of work or vocation merely to
minimize the effects of his disability. Considering the physical
demands of his prior occupation and the permanent nature of his
disability, it is clear that his earning capacity has been critically
affected. He is no longer in a position to carry out his duties as an
AC Technician, which involved extensive mobility, agility and
physical exertion. Accordingly, his functional disability is
assessed as 80% in respect of his earning capacity.
24(g) Future Prospect:
(i) It is also held therein that future prospect (as laid down in
the well considered judgment of National Insurance Company v
Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) shall be payable, not only in
fatal cases but also in the case of permanent disability. The
observations made in the said case as relevant to the context are
reproduced hereunder:
“6. The principle consistently followed by this court in assessing
motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a
position as she or he was in before the accident, with other
compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments.
These general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
decisions.
7. Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of
permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the
claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income,
amounts for future Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.
[Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.
This court referred to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest
Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551; Nizam’s Institute of
Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1; Reshma
Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Raj Kumar v. Ajay
Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. Govind Yadav spelt out these principles by
stating that the courts should, “in determining the quantum of
compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled
either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers
permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award
adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment,
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 34 of 62
but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life
and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the
disability caused due to the accident.” These decisions were also
followed in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay
Kumar Mohanty, (2018) 3 SCC 686. prospects too; and two, the
extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is
technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi involved assessment
of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went
wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench decision in Jagdish
was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant10 to
the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was
binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no justification for
the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to
exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in
accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent
disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi11 is illogical,
because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim
progressing further in life in accident cases – and admits such
possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim’s death.
.
.
(ii) Hon’ble Supreme Court further discussed several cases
involving permanent disability and observed as under:
20. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach,
but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of
life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and
compensation under various heads.
.
.
….What is to be seen, as emphasized by decision after decision,
is the impact of the injury upon the income generating capacity
of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg or arm) and its severity
on that account is to be judged in relation to the profession,
vocation or business of the victim; there cannot be a blind
arithmetic formula for ready application. On an overview of the
principles outlined in the previous decisions, it is apparent that
the income generating capacity of the appellant was
undoubtedly severely affected”.
(iii) PW-1 has filed his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/7 on record as
per which his date of birth is 25.09.1984, therefore, his age as on
the date of accident was about 33 years and 6 months. Since the
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 35 of 62
injured was below the age of years (at the time of accident) and
was employed on a fixed salary, thus as laid down in the case of
Pranay Sethi (Supra), the percentage towards future prospect is
taken to be @ 40 % upon application of category of ”self-
employed or on a fixed salary”.
24(h) Multiplier:
(i) The multiplier method was coined by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation
& Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008, decided on 15.04.2009 to
ascertain the future loss of income in relation to the age of the
deceased, in order to bring about the uniformity and consistency
in determination of compensation payable in fatal and serious
injuries matters. Relevant observations with respect to the
multiplier method in the abovementioned case read as under:
“The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of
dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the
circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an
appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined
by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is
higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested
at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield
the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this,
regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital
sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the
dependency is expected to last.”
(ii) The standard multiplier method was directed to be applied
not only to ascertain the loss of dependancy in fatal accident case
but also to determine future loss of earning in serious disability
matters as well {as laid in the case of Raj Kumar (supra)}. In a
recent Judgment of Pappu Dev Yadav (supra), Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India relied upon and reiterated the principles laid in
various judgments passed by it in the case of Sr. Antony @
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 36 of 62
Antony Swamy v Managing Director KSRTC, Civil Appeal No.
2551 of 2018 and held that stereotypical or myopic approach
must be avoided and pragmatic reality of life must be taken into
account to determine the impact of extent of disability upon the
income generated capacity of victim.
(iii) The income of the injured per annum as determined upon
appreciation of evidence, thus, forms the multiplicand. A table of
multiplier with reference to the age was laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India. The appropriate multiplier, applicable in
this case would be 16 (for age group between 45 to 50 years).
(iv) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation
under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(a) Annual income (Rs. 17,500/- x 12) = Rs.2,10,000/-
(b) Future prospect (40% of Rs 2,10,000/-) = Rs. 84,000/-
__________________
(c) Total = Rs. 2,94,000/-
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs. 2,94,000/-
(e) Hence, the ‘Total Loss of Future Income’ shall be :-
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
80% (Rs. 2,94,000/- X 16) = Rs. 37,63,200/- 24(i) Future medical expenses: (i) Due to accident, the injured had to undergo an above-knee
amputation of his right leg above knee. PW-1 deposed that he
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 37 of 62
would require assistance of an artificial limb costing about Rs.
4,08,770/- with replacement every 4-5 years. However, he
clarified in this cross-examination, that he has not yet purchased
any artificial limb. There are quotations filed on record for
artificial limbs along with silicon liner, ranging from Rs.
4,67,500/- to Rs. 6,06,558/-. It is also mentioned that the silicon
liner has a life span of about one year requiring annual
replacement costing Rs. 21,943/-, along with recurring repair and
maintenance charges estimated between Rs. 24,000/- to Rs.
45,000/-. A separate quotation from Ottobock Health Care India
Pvt. Ltd. reflects a cost of Rs. 6,09,147/-. Apparently, cost of Rs.
4,08,770/-, as mentioned in the evidentiary affidavit also stands
reflected in the aforementioned quotation. A medical prescription
dated 21.06.2018 also confirms the need for a through-knee
prosthesis. It is also evident that the victim appeared before the
Committee for Prosthesis Evaluation on 06.04.2021 as per which
his functional level classification has been put in K-2 category by
workshop manager (Training) Rehabilitation Department,
Safdarjung Hospital.
(ii) The requirement of a prosthetic limb to enable the injured
to lead a functional and dignified life is clearly supported by the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anant S/o
Siddheshwar Dukre v. Pratap S/o Zhamnnappa Lamzane &
Anr., Civil Appeal No. 8420 of 2018, which was also relied upon
in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v Regional Manager UP
State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 SCC Online SC 1701.
(iii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed in the case of
Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain (supra):
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 38 of 62
“23. As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic
limb and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15
years, even if we were to assume that the limb would not need
to be replaced after a few years. The Appellant was only 37
years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to
assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We
are of the opinion that the Appellant must be compensated so
that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime
and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70
years of age. For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to
be awarded compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance
of the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-.”
(iv) Reliance upon case of Sabbir Hussain (supra) was also
placed upon by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of The
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Ms Pinki And Ors on 16
October, 2023, MAC Appeal No. 480/2023:
“4. The appellant challenges the Impugned Award on the
compensation awarded to the respondent no.1 towards cost of the
prosthetic limb. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the same is highly exorbitant and cannot be sustained.
5. I find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant.
6. The learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation of
Rs.41,99,055/-in favour of the respondent no.1 towards cost of the
prosthetic limb, has observed as under:
“32. It is apparent from the above discussion that the petitioner had
to undergo amputation of her right lower limb. This hardship
requires remedial steps (i.e. use of prosthesis) for restoring normal
movement of the injured. In this regard, the petitioner has examined
PW-3 SH. Anshul Sengar, who is a Prosthetist and Orthotist. PW-3
proved a quotation dated 18.01.2021 Ex.PW3/1 for a sum of Rs.
5,99,086/- issued in favour of the petitioner for : Ottobock Modular
Transfemoral Prosthesis with 3R60 EBS Knee Joint. Dual
Hydraulic. Dynamic Motion Foot. Carbonfiber Laminated Socket
with Liner. Foam Cover. Cosmetics Stockings. It is mentioned in the
covering letter that average life of artificial leg is 6 years
approximately. The said facts have not been rebutted by either of the
respondents. Keeping in view the average life expectancy of about
70 years for Indian Females, the petitioner is entitled to be granted
compensation for purchase of prosthesis and its replacement in
future. As per Aadhar card and education certificates the age of
petitioner was 30 years at the time of accident. As per the statement
of PW-3, the average life of prosthesis is 6 years. As such it could be
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 39 of 62
safely inferred that the petitioner was required to purchase a
prosthesis immediately after the accident and to replace it at least 07
times during her life time. Accordingly, the petitioner has to be
granted compensation for the purchase and replacement of
prosthesis on said 07 occasions. In the facts and circumstances, the
petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.41,99,055/- (Rs. 5,99,865/-
X 7) in this regard and the same is granted to her as compensation
under this head.”
7. As far as the cost of prosthetic limb is concerned, the respondent
no.1 had produced before the learned Tribunal Mr.Anshul Sengar,
Prosthetist and Orthotist, who deposed the price of a prosthetic limb
as Rs.5,99,086/-. He further deposed that the average life of the
prosthesis is 6 years. There was no contrary evidence led by the
appellant before the learned Tribunal on the cost of the prosthetic
limb that would be suitable for the respondent no. 1.
8. The learned Tribunal has rightly taken the average expectancy to
be around 70 years and, awarded compensation taking the cost of
prosthetic limb for purposes of replacement of at least seven times.
The above methodology has been approved by the Supreme Court in
Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701, observing
as under:
“COMPENSATION FOR THE PURCHASE AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE PROSTHETIC LEG
22.The High Court has awarded a compensation of
Rs.5,20,000/- for the prosthetic limb and Rs.50,000/- towards
repair and maintenance of the same. The Appellant submits
that the cost of the prosthetic limb itself is Rs. 2,60,000/- and
the life of the prosthetic limb is only 5-6 years. The
prosthetic limb also requires repair and maintenance after
every 6 months to 1 year, and each repair costs between
Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000/-. This would mean that the
prosthetic limb would last the Appellant for only 15 years
under the current compensation. The Appellant at the time of
the accident was aged 37 years and has a full life ahead. It
has been clearly stated by this Court in the case of Anant Son
of Sidheshwar Dukre (Supra) that the purpose of fair
compensation is to restore the injured to the position he was
in prior to the accident as best as possible. The relevant
paragraph of the judgment is being extracted herein:
“In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries
and disablements, it is a well settled principle
that a person must not only be compensated for
his physical injury, but also for the non-
pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to
the injury. The Claimant is entitled to be
compensated for his inability to lead a full lifeMACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 40 of 62
and enjoy those things and amenities which he
would have enjoyed, but for the injuries.” “The
purpose of compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore
the aggrieved to the position prior to the
accident.”
23. As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic limb
and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15 years,
even if we were to assume that the limb would not need to be
replaced after a few years. The Appellant was only 37 years at the
time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he
would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the opinion
that the Appellant must be compensated so that he is able to
purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain
the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age. For the
Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded compensation
of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded
an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-.”
(Emphasis supplied)
9. In view of the above, no fault can be found in the Impugned
Award as far as it determines the compensation payable to the
respondent no.1 towards cost of Prosthetic limb as Rs.41,99,055/-.
Challenge to interest awarded on the amount awarded for Prosthesis
10. The appellant further challenges the award of interest on the
above amount of compensation, claiming that as the amount is yet to
be spent by the respondent no.1 for procuring the prosthetic limb,
interest on the same could not have been awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1, who appears on
advance notice, does not join issue on the above challenge of the
appellant.
12. Accordingly, it is directed that the compensation amount of Rs.
41,99,055/- shall not carry interest, provided the same is deposited
with the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today.
In case, it is not so deposited, it shall carry interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of the impugned Award till its actual
deposit with the learned Tribunal. Challenge to the Rate of Interest
(v) The injured was about 35 years old at the time of the
accident. It is imperative that the awarded compensation restores
the claimant to their pre-accident condition as nearly as possible.
This Court finds that the methodology employed in determining
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 41 of 62
the compensation, including the consideration of future
replacements and maintenance, is in accordance with the
principles upheld by higher courts. Taking guidance from
aforementioned observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court
and Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it is assumed that the lifespan of
such devices is generally understood to be around 5-6 years. This
general understanding is crucial in determining the adequacy of
the awarded compensation. Considering the age of the claimant
at the time of the incident, it is reasonable to project the necessity
for at least 6 replacements of the prosthetic limb throughout the
claimant’s expected lifetime of 70 years of claimant as per the list
with comparable prices of Transfemoral Prosthesis for K-2
Activity Level, it was recommended that the Prosthesis with
Silicon Liner and Shuttle Lock Mechanism, including liner cost
for 4 years was tagged at Rs. 3,70,000/- with 10% yearly cost
towards maintenance. Accordingly, on the basis of
recommendation, cost of prosthesis is taken at Rs. 3,70,000/-.
However, as the entire amount towards maintenance is being paid
at one go, a lumpsum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is being awarded.
This decision is consistent with established judicial precedents
that mandate compensation for both acquisition and upkeep of
medical aids essential for the claimant’s rehabilitation. Therefore,
claimant is entitled to total of Rs. 27,20,000/- {(Rs.3,70,000/-
×6) + Rs. 5,00,000/-}.
25. NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
(i) Injured is entitled to both, pecuniary as well as non-
pecuniary damages. As the name suggests, pecuniary damages
are designed to make good the pecuniary loss which can be
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 42 of 62
ascertained in terms of money whereas non pecuniary damages are
general damages to compensate the injured for mental and physical
shock, pain, suffering, loss of expectation of life, inconvenience,
hardship, frustration, stress, dejectment and unhappiness suffered
by him on account of injuries sustained in the accident. It takes into
account all the aspects of a normal life which deluded injured on
account of accident. Given the nature of heads covered, it is bound
to involve guess work on the part of Tribunal involving some
hypothetical consideration as well, primarily considering the special
circumstances of the injured and the effect of those upon his future
life.
(ii) Regarding non-pecuniary loss, following was stated in
Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4 th Edition, Vol. 12 (page 446) {also
been referred to and relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sidram (supra)}
“Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern: Damages awarded for pain and suffering
and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the
sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the
light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional
principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of
different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular
injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff,
including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in
the actual amount of the award.
(iii) In case of Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of
India, (1999) 6 SCC 667, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held
that the object of an award of damages is to give the plaintiff
compensation for damage, loss or injury he has suffered. The Court
further held that the elements of damage recognized by law are
divisible into two main groups: pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss.
While the pecuniary loss is capable of being arithmetically worked
out, the non- pecuniary loss is not so calculable. Non-pecuniary loss
is compensated in terms of money, not as a substitute or
replacement for other money, but as a substitute, what McGregor
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 43 of 62
says, is generally more important than money: it is the best that a
court can do.
(iv). Further, in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2
SCC 274, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that if a
collection of cases on the quantum of damages is to be useful, it
must necessarily be classified in such a way that comparable cases
can be grouped together. No doubt, no two cases are alike but still,
it is possible to make a broad classification which enables one to
bring comparable awards together. Inflation should be taken into
account while calculating damages.
(The above two cases were also referred and relied in the case of A. Rupin
Manohar Through Sh. S. Anandha vs Mohd. Ansari & Ors. MAC App. 602/2015
decided on 17 August, 2017 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court).
(v) To sum up, Compensation under non-pecuniary heads
involves objective assessment of the damages in a bid to undo the
loss, the injured would incur on account of his inability to a normal
life and earn as much as he could, but for the injuries sustained. The
whole idea behind assessment for damages for compensation is to
put the claimant in the same position in so far as money can. The
very nature of these damages, compulsorily involves some
guesswork and hypothetical considerations, however, efforts should
be made to adjudicate these on the basis of objective parameters
rather than guided by subjective sympathy. The nature and severity
of injury, the age, nature of disability are some of those parameters.
Given hereunder are various heads under which compensation for
non-pecuniary loss (general damages) is assessed:
25(a) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma on account of injuries:
(i) The mental and physical loss cannot always be
arithmetically computed in terms of money. These form the
intangible losses suffered by injured for no fault of his. AlthoughMACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 44 of 62
any form of human suffering cannot be equated in money,
however, the object remains to compensate in so far as the money
can compensate. Certain observations made by the Supreme
Court of India in R. D. Hattangadi are relevant in the context:
“10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the
appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become
paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is
really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of
compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant
and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of
compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant.
That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount
is determined as the compensation payable for any injury
suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such
injury “so far as money can compensate” because it is
impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or
personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and
shattered physical frame.
(ii) Certain factors were also laid down for consideration in the
case of The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs Mahadeva Shetty
And Anr Appeal (Civil) 5453 of 2003 further relied in the case of
Sidram (supra) for awarding compensation for pain and
suffering. The observations made in the aforesaid case as relevant
to the context are reproduced hereunder:
“113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as
observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be
mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes
physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep
mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant
trauma of the victim’s having to live in a world entirely different
from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with
degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal
choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge’s mind,
whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe
limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity
(which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the rightMACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 45 of 62
to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the
person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she
or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the
victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most
discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award
niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is
resultant affront to the injured victim. [See: Pappu Deo Yadav
(supra)]
(iii) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Suresh
(supra) observed as follows:
“2. … There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the
heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the
pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in
the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates
that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it
becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just
compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and
simultaneously, should not be a pittance.”
But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt
of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of
compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to
question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it
must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss
and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not
law’s doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements
under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a
paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of
enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity. (as relied in
the case of Jagdish v Mohan AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT
1347, by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India).
(iv) The injured suffered 80% permanent physical disability in
right lower limb with above knee amputation. It is settled that
each case has to be evaluated upon his special circumstances in
the backdrop of deprivation which disability would cause on his
future life. Loss of limb constitutes a major loss, not only
physically but also mentally, emotionally and psychologically
having to live with the feeling that he is no longer a normal
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 46 of 62
person, relegated and pushed into the difficult world of a disabled
person. There is no methodology to weigh the sufferings in terms
of money, however, the Tribunal is required to engage in some
guess work objectively to consider the peculiar circumstances of
the case at hand to be able to award suitable compensation with
the object to place the victim in as near a position as the victim
was in before the accident. An amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is
awarded to the injured against pain, suffering and and trauma
sustained in the accident.
25(b) Loss of amenities of life:
(i) It compensates the victim on account of his inability to
enjoy the basis amenities of life as any other normal person can,
taking into account the age and the deprivation he would have to
undergo and suffer due to injuries. Certain observations were
made by Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat in the case of Vijaykumar
Babulal Modi vs State Of Gujarat SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION NO. 20488 of 2017 referred by HSC in the case
of Sidram (supra) which is reproduced hereunder:
“It appears that the claim under this head is to the tune of
Rs.3 lac. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum
under the head ‘loss of amenities’. We are of the opinion
that this head must take into account all aspects of a
normal life that have been lost due to the injury caused. As
per R.D. Hattangadi‘s case (supra), this includes a variety
of matters such as the inability to walk, run or sit, etc. We
include here too the loss of childhood pleasure such as the
ability to freely play, dance, run, etc., the loss of ability to
freely move or travel without assistance….”
(ii) Injured would not be able to move around without
callipers or wheelchairs and therefore would have to forego the
basic pleasures of life, including running and walking. It is
settled that this head takes into account all the aspect of the
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 47 of 62
normal life due to the injury caused. Accordingly an amount of
Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities considering
the nature of injury and the extent of disability.
25(c) Disfigurement:
(i) Injured has his right above knee amputated. Disfigured
basically means something which is not in form or shape or
figure which implies that the appearance of someone was spoiled
on account of injuries sustained in the accident. In the case of
Sabbir Hussain (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
highlighted the need to consider the socio economic background
of the claimant while dealing with the cases of bodily disabilities
observing that such disabilities make them prone to further
discrimination and awarded Rs. 2 lakhs towards disfigurement
involving 80% permanent disability with amputation of the right
leg above the knee. As such, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is
awarded under this head.
25(d) Longevity of life
(i) There is no evidence on record that the nature of disability
would have any effect on the longevity of injured therefore any
amount is not awarded under this head.
26. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put
in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all
concerned:
27. Having regard to the law as also discussed above regarding
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 48 of 62
compensation, in the present case award amount is calculated as
under:
1. Pecuniary loss : – Quantum
(i) Expenditure on treatment : Rs. 20,961/-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs. 30,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs. 25,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs. 2,00,000/-
(v) Loss of income : Rs. 1,05,000/-
(vi) Loss of Future Income: Rs. 37,63,200/-
(vi) Future Medical Bills + Cost of Rs. 27,20,000/-
artificial limbs (if applicable) :
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : NA
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of Pain and Suffering Rs.5,00,000/-
as well as mental and physical shock :
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.1,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Rs. 2,00,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Nil
Total Compensation Rs.79,64,161/-
Deduction, if any, NA
Total Compensation after deduction Rs.76,64,161/-
Interest As directed
below
28. Interest:
(i) It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be
prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend
upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable
guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 49 of 62
deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance
placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram
MAC APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC
APP 70/2024 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court).
29. Liability:-
29(a). Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective
Insurance Policy on the date of accident however, has contended
that the owner did not have a valid permit for plying his vehicle
on the road at the time of accident. R3W1 Ms. Lalita Anand,
Administrative Officer, Oriental Insurance Company affirmed
that permit of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No. RJ 14GE
2340 was valid from 12.04.2017 till 02.04.2018 and then from
06.04.2018 till 02.04.2019 whereas the accident took place on
05.04.2018 thus the permit was clearly not valid as on the date of
accident. She also deposed that the insurance company had
appointed Investigator Sh. Narender Singh who had verified the
permit from the office of Additional Secretary, Regional
Transport Authority, Jagatpura, Jaipur which confirmed that the
permit was not valid as on 05.04.2018. She deposed that owner
had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. She
also deposed that counsel on behalf of company had issued notice
dated 15.11.2021 under Order XII Rule 8 CPC to produce valid
permit covering the date of accident. She relied upon Report of
the Regional Transport Authority, Jagatpura Jaipur as Ex.R3W1/3
and notice under Order XII Rule 8 Ex.R3W1/4 and postal receipt
as Ex.R3W1/5. Counsel for the Insurance Company relied uponMACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 50 of 62
the judgment in the case of Ram Pher (supra) arguing that plying
a vehicle without a valid permit is a violation and constitutes a
statutory defence under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles
Act.
29(b). Per contra, R-2 Rajeev Sangar tendered evidentiary
affidavit affirming that the insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation as the vehicle was duly insured as on the date of
accident.
29(c). As per the Certificate of Permit Ex.R3W1/3 bearing
no. 46139, permit was valid from 03.04.2012 to 02.04.2017
which was renewed w.e.f. 12.04.2017 till 02.04.2022. The
accident took place on 05.04.2018 thus, permit was very much
valid as on the date of accident. It also reflects that the validity of
authorisation commenced from 06.04.2018 and extended till
02.04.2019. The Permit Report given by Investigator also asserts
the same point that the permit was not valid on 05.04.2018 as
authorisation validity commenced from 06.04.2018. There is no
evidence on record that the owner / Rajeev Sengar ever replied to
the notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC and produced
authorisation receipt factually covering the date of accident.
29(d). Counsel for R-2 has vehemently argued, relying
upon the transaction references filed in support of Certificate of
Permit that the authorisation was issued on 06.04.2018 whereas it
actually came into effect as on 02.04.2018 and therefore, the
authorisation validity duly covered the date of accident. He relied
upon Sec. 81 (5) of MV Act along with judgment in the case of
Dr. Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Vs. Banu Begum, First
Appeal No.202022/2016 and Manish Narayan Vs. Seema Bouri
& Ors. 2009 ACJ -2271 (Jharkhand).
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 51 of 62
Legal Framework on the issue at hand:-
29(e) Section 66 of MV Act envisages plying of any transport
vehicle strictly in tune with condition mentioned in permit. It
reads as under:
“66 Necessity for permits. – (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use
or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public
place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers
or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or
countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any
prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that
place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used:
Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions
that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as
a contract carriage:
Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any
conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the
vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not:
Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any
conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to
use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a
trade or business carried on by him.
[Provided also that where a transport vehicle has been issued any
permit or permits, as well as a licence under this Act, such vehicle
may be used either under the permit, or permits, so issued to it, or
under such licence, at the discretion of the vehicle owner.]
(2)The holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle,
for drawing of any trailer or semi-trailer not owned by him,
subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:
[Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle
may use the prime-mover of that articulated vehicle for any
other semi-trailer.]
…
…………………..”
29(f) It is settled that non compliance with permit condition
constitutes an infraction and is available to insurance company as
a defence to avoid or refuse liability to indemnify insured.
Section 149 (2) MV Act enlists the defences so available,
relevant extract of which is reproduced hereunder:
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 52 of 62
“149. (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1)
in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the
commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is
given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be,
the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect
of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon
pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of
any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party
thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds,
namely:–
(a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy,
being one of the following conditions, namely:–
(i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle–
(a) xxx (b) xxx (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit
under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a
transport vehicle
………………”
29(g) It is also settled that any permit issued by RTA shall be
valid only for plying in state/ region unless specifically
authorised for contiguous / other States. Section 88 of MV Act is
reproduced hereunder:
“88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which
granted. – (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit
granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region
shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been
countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other
region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid
in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport
Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport
Authority concerned:
29(h) It is not in dispute that offending vehicle was holding All
India National Permit as on the date of accident. Explanation
appended to Section 88 (12) MV Act defines National Permit
which reads as under:
“national permit means a permit granted by the appropriate
authority to goods carriages to operate throughout the territory
of India or in such contiguous States not being less than four in
number, including the State in which the permit is issued as may
be specified in such permit in accordance with the choice
indicated in the application.”
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 53 of 62
29(i) Section 88 (12) MV Act authorises issuance of National
Permit to cover all India mobility of Transport Vehicle which
reads as under:
“12. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), but,
subject to the rules that may be made by the Central
Government under sub-section (14), the appropriate authority
may, for the purpose of encouraging long distance inter-State
road transport, grant in a State, national permits in respect of
goods carriages and the provisions of sections 69, 77, 79, 80, 81,
82, 83, 84, 85, 86, [clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 87
and section 89] shall, as far as may be, apply to or in relation to
the grant of national permits.”
29(j). Section 81 MV Act lays down the law in respect of renewal
of permit. It would be relevant at this stage to refer Sec. 81 MV
Act for further discussion:
“(1)………
(2) A permit may be renewed on an application made not less
than fifteen days before the date of its expiry.
(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the
Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as
the case may be, may entertain an application for the renewal of
a permit after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is
satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient
cause from making an application within the time specified.
(4)…………..
(5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the
expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from
the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a
temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section
87, and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid
in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded.”
29(k) Section 81 MV Act conceptualizes ‘deemed permit’ during
the period between expiry of permit and renewal thereof. In case
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 54 of 62
at hand, permit itself was valid, however, authorisation validity
upon payment of authorisation fee has been disputed.
29(l) It is settled that authorisation validity is also pivotal in
permit verification so as to ply the vehicle outside state. Certain
observation of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Mohd.
Manzoor & Anr. Vs. Khuyabuda Khatun & Ors. MAC App
401/2016 as relevant to the context are reproduced as under:
4. A division bench of Kerala High Court had the occasion to go
into similar issues in a judgment reported as MC Sunil Vs.
Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad and Ors., AIR 2005 Kerala
221. Since the view taken in the said judgment commends itself
being followed in view of the relevant provisions of law, the
relevant observations appearing therein need to be referred to.
5. Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines “national
permit” by clause (c) of the explanation appended thereto to
mean “a permit granted by the appropriate authority to goods
carriages to operate throughout the territory of India or in such
contiguous States, not being less than four in number including
the State in which the permit is issued as may be specified in
such permit in accordance with the choice indicated in the
application”. Mere taking of a national permit from the State
Transport Authority is not sufficient to allow a vehicle to be
plied outside the State. For such purposes i.e. plying the vehicle
outside the State where it is registered, there is a need
for “authorization”. Such authorization is issued by the State
Transport Authority upon payment of “authorization fee”, an
expression which is defined by clause (b) in the explanation
appended to Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act so as to mean
“the annual fee not exceeding one thousand rupees, which may
be charged by the appropriate authority of a State to enable a
motor vehicle, covered by the permit referred to in sub-sections
(9) and (12) to be used in other State subject to the payment of
taxes or fees, if any, levied by the States concerned”.
29(m) The term ‘authorisation fee’ has been defined in
Explanation to Section 88 MV Act which reads as under:
“88(b) authorisation fee means the annual fee, not exceeding one
thousand rupees, which may be charged by the appropriateMACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 55 of 62
authority of a State to enable a motor vehicle, covered by the
permit referred to in sub-sections (9) and (12) to be used in other
States subject to the payment of taxes or fees, if any, levied by
the States concerned;
29(n) Rule 87 MV Act lays down the procedure and validity of
authorisation which reads as under:
“87. Form, contents and duration of authorisation.–(1) An
application for the grant of an authorisation for a national permit
shall be made in Form 46 and shall be accompanied by a fee of
Rs. 500 per annum in the form of a bank draft.
(2) Every authorization shall be granted in Form 47 subject to
the payment of the taxes or fees, if any levied by the States
concerned.
(2-A) The authority which grants the authorisation shall inform
the State Transport Authorities concerned the registration
number of the motor vehicle, the name and address of the permit
holder and the period for which the said authorisation is valid.
(3) The period of validity of an authorisation shall not exceed
one year at a time.”
29(o) If the concept of a ‘deemed permit’ is considered valid for
the purpose of renewal of a permit after its expiry, then the
authorisation fee for the period during which the main permit
remained valid cannot be treated distinctly. It cannot be stated
that concept of ‘deemed authorisation’ as analogous to ‘deemed
permit’ under Section 81(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act would not
apply to authorisation pending renewal. Further, if the statute
itself provides for the validity of the permit during the
interregnum period, there is no reason why the Rules framed
under the statute would not also qualify for the same exemption.
29(p) Counsel for the insurance company argued that no
application has been placed on record to assess whether it was
filed within the prescribed period i.e. within 15 days prior to the
date of expiry of authorisation. As far as the validity of the
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 56 of 62
authorisation is concerned, it is evident that the accident occurred
on 05.04.2018, and the authorisation validity commenced from
06.04.2018. It is very unlikely that the authorisation would have
been issued the very next day had it not been applied earlier.
Section 81 MV Act does not bar the renewal of a permit even if
the application is not made within 15 days prior to expiry. There
is no reason as to why the authorisation validity would be treated
differently which is subset of the primary statutory requirement
of owners holding a valid permit as on the date of accident.
Therefore, the objection raised by the insurance company that the
copy of application seeking renewal has not been filed in
evidence to assess whether fee was submitted in less than 15 days
from the date of expiry is of no consequence.
29(q) The Transactions Status, running from 13.04.2012 till
02.04.2020 has been filed as part of the permit report issued on
behalf of RTA Jagatpura, Jaipur. It shows that the validity of
authorisation continues to be extended upto 02 nd April every year
starting from the year 2013 till the year 2020 whereas it gets
issued on different dates spanning a gap of 4 to 15 days from the
date of expiry of validity. It is mentioned in the statutory
provision itself and also as reflected from the transaction status
that the validity of authorisation is yearly extended. Therefore,
even though, the issuance of formal authorisation gets beyond the
date of expiry however, it is considered valid only till a particular
yearly date which gives the inference that the formal issuance of
authorisation is distinct from the period of actual validity
including the date of commencement. It can be so inferred as the
transaction status only mentions the date of issuance of
authorisation rather than date of commencement of validity of
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 57 of 62
authorisation. As clearly mentioned in Sec.81 (5) MV Act, the
date of validity of transaction shall go back to the date of
previous expiry of validity of authorisation irrespective of date of
formal issuance of authorisation. It is reflected that the
authorisation was issued on 12.04.2017 which was valid upto
02.04.2018 and subsequently, authorisation was issued on
06.04.2018 which was valid upto 02.04.2019. Given by the
above reasoning, it can be inferred that the authorisation of
validity even though formally issued as on 06.04.2018 shall be
considered valid from the date of previous expiry which was
02.04.2018 and thus the date of accident was duly covered with a
valid authorisation of permit. The contention raised by the
insurance company in respect of lack of authorisation of validity
of permit as on the date of accident is rejected.
29(r). Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective
Insurance Policy on the date of accident in WS as well as during
evidence and further not raised any statutory defence. It has
already been held that accident occurred on account of speedy
and rash driving of offending vehicle. It is settled that Insurance
Company is responsible to indemnify owner / insured for
vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser. Therefore, such
principal award amount/compensation will be payable by the
insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @
7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization.
(If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific
period same be complied at the time of calculation of award
amount).
30. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 58 of 62
Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to
furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case
number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station,
name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other
relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court
Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited.
The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the
account titled “MACT FUND PARKING”, Account No.
00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code
110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
31. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
Out of total award amount, Rs.70,00,000/- along with
proportionate interest (to the principle amount) up to date interest
shall be kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs.20,000/- each.
Remaining amount along with proportionate up to date interest
shall be released in his bank account.
32. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon’ble
High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated
14.05.2025, the claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank
account details along with either a certificate of the banker giving
all details of the bank account of the person or persons entitled to
receive the compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of
cancelled cheque of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven
days of the date of Award, if not already placed on record. They
are also directed to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not
already filed.
33. Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court
Complex:
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 59 of 62
(a). The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further
directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the
claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper
verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the
bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for
release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount,
directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified
bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
34. Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:
(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon’ble High Court, vide
reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall
invest the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit with any
nationalised bank and fixed deposit shall be with the standing
instructions to the bank to renew the same after periodical
intervals till further orders are passed by the Tribunal.
(b) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in
the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e.
the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual
savings bank account and not a joint account.
(c) The 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 claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near
the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by
Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of
the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be
allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or
debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 60 of 62
cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the
same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank
shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit
card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any
other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card
have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission
of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the
necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed
for compliance.
35. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN
THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 05.04.2018
2 Name of injured Mohd. Arif
3 Age of the injured 33 years and 6 months
4 Occupation of the AC Technician
injured
5 Income of the injured Rs.17,500/-
6 Nature injury Grievous injury and 80%
disability with right above
knee amputation.
7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 61 of 62
9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury and 80%
disability? disability with right above
knee amputation.
36. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The
copy of award be also sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate.
SHELLY Digitally signed by
SHELLY ARORA
Announced in the open court
on 14.07.2025 ARORA Date: 2025.07.14
16:32:34 +0530
Shelly Arora
PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi
14.07.2025
MACT No.: 844/2018 Mohd. Arif VS. Prakash & Ors. Page No. 62 of 62
[ad_1]
Source link