[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
Sanjay @Sanjay Rathor vs Utkarsh Singh on 28 May, 2025
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUDESH KUMAR :
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 431/2023
CNR NO. DLST01-010673-2023
DLST010106732023
1. Mr. Sachin Kumar
S/o Mr. Raju Shah
R/o Village Rozza Jallalpur,
Dhoom Singh Market, Greater Noida
Uttar Pradesh.
Also at Gram Raghunathpur, Post-Mirpur,
Rampur, East Champaran Rampur,
Bihar - 845415. ......injured
Petition No. : 432/2023
CNR NO. DLST01-010672-2023
DLST010106722023
1. Mr. Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor
S/o Mr. Rambaran
R/o A-1288, Gharoli Dairy Colony,
Mayur Vihar Phase-3,
Page No.1/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
East Delhi - 110096. .......injured
Petition No. : 433/2023
CNR NO. DLST01-010640-2023
DLST010106402023
1. Mr. Santosh Kumar
S/o Mr. Shubh Narayan Sah
R/o M-I-519, Gali No. 8,
Ground Floor, Sangam Vihar,
Devli, South Delhi. .......injured
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Mr. Utkarsh Singh
S/o Mr. Kuldeep Singh
R/o A-405, I R W O, Rail Vihar
Society, P.S. Beeta-2, Greater Noida,
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar,
UP ..... (driver)
2. Ms. Shristi Saini
D/o Mr. Anil Kumar
R/o H.No. -17, Gautam Nagar
Andrewsganj, South Delhi. ....(Owner)
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
4th Floor, Redfort Capital Parsvnath Tower
Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Gol Market,
New Delhi. ......(Insurance company)
......Respondents
Page No.2/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
Date of Institution : 13.10.2023
Date of reserving of
judgment/order : 28.05.2025
Date of pronouncement : 28.05.2025
JUDGMENT:
1. These are the three separate claim petitions filed by
injured persons namely Sachin Kumar, Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor
and Santosh Kumar. All the three petitions have arisen out of the
same accident. The petitioners have filed the claim petitions for
compensation under Section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle act,
1988 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) for the injuries sustained
by them in a road accident that occurred on 12.05.2023 at about
10.10 AM opposite Bloom International School Roza, Jalapur,
Noida due to rash and negligent driving of Creta Car bearing no.
DL-3CCU-7465 by the respondent no. 1 which was owned by
respondent no. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3. The
injured Sachin Kumar has claimed Rs.50,00,000/-, injured Sanjay
@ Sanjay Rathor has claimed Rs.80,00,000/- and injured Santosh
Kumar has claimed Rs.80,00,000/- as compensation.
2. The brief facts as per the petitions are that on
12.05.2023 the petitioners namely Sachin Kumar, Sanjay, and
Santosh Kumar were going to Delhi in a tempo bearing no.
UP-16T-2272 which was being driven by Sanjay at a normal
Page No.3/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
speed and on correct side of the road. When they reached
opposite Bloom International School Roza-Jalalpur, Noida, in the
meantime one vehicle bearing no. DL-3CCU-7465 which was
being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came
from opposite/ wrong side and hit their tempo with a great force.
Due to the said impact, all the petitioners sustained grievous
injuries. As a result thereof, the claimant Sachin has suffered
20% permanent physical impairment in respect of his Right
Lower Limb, claimant Sanjay has suffered 58% permanent
physical impairment in respect of his Both Lower Limbs and
claimant Sanotsh Kumar has suffered 83% permanent physical
impairment in respect of his Both Lower Limbs.
3. Notice of the petitions were issued to the respondents.
Pursuant to notice, the respondents filed their written statements.
4. Joint written statement was filed on behalf of the
respondent no.(s) 1 and 2 submitting that they are not liable to
pay any compensation to the petitioners whatsoever as the
vehicle was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Ltd. for the period from 06.10.2021 to 05.10.2024 at
the time of accident. The road on which the accident happened
was a single lane and according to the mechanical inspection
report of the car ‘the car was damaged from the right side’ which
means car was on the correct side of the road.
Page No.4/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
5. The respondent no. 3/insurance company has contested
the claim inter-alia stating that the accident has occurred due to
the negligence of injured Sanjay who was driving Tempo bearing
no. UP-16AT-2272. It is averred that the FIR has been lodged in
collusion with the respondent no.(s) 1 and 2 and the police. The
respondent no. 3 has been falsely implicated with an afterthought
of the claim. However, it is admitted that the offending vehicle
bearing no. DL-3CCU-7465 was insured vide policy no.
3001/228505569/00/000 with effect from 06.10.2021 to
05.10.2024 in favour of Ms. Shristi Saini/ respondent no. 2.
6. After the pleadings following issues were framed vide
order dated 01.06.2024 :
◦ Whether Sachin Kumar, Sanjay & Santosh Kumar
sustained injuries in the road accident on 12.05.2023 at
about 10:10 AM opposite Bloom International School
Roza, Jalapur, Noida due to rash and negligent driving
of Creta bearing no. DL-3CCU-7465 being driven by
respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and
insured with respondent no. 3 (ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Company Ltd.) ? (OPP)
◦ To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are
entitled and from whom?OPP
◦ Relief.
7. Thereafter the matter was referred to Local
Commissioner for recording of evidence. Ld. Local
Page No.5/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
Commissioner after recording the evidence filed his report.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have
carefully perused the court record. As all the three claim petitions
arise out of the same accident, the claim petitions stand
consolidated for the purposes of evidence.
My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1
9. In a claim petition, onus is on the claimants/ petitioners
to prove that they have suffered grievous injuries in the vehicular
accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence of the driver of
the offending vehicle.
10. All the petitions were consolidated for the purpose of
evidence.
11. In order to establish their claims, the injured persons
examined themselves as PW1 to PW3.
12. The respondents have not examined any witness
despite opportunities being given.
Page No.6/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
13. Injured Santosh Kumar (MACT/433/2023) was
examined as PW1 who deposed that on 12.05.2023 he was going
to Delhi alongwith other persons namely Sahil Kumar, Sachin
Kumar and Sanjay Rathor by the Tempo bearing no.
UP-16AT-2272 which was being driven by Sanjay @ Sanjay
Rathor at a very normal speed. When they reached opposite
Bloom International School Rouza Jalalpur, Noida in the
meantime one Creta car bearing no. DL-3CCU-7465 came in a
rash and negligent manner and hit their tempo with a great force.
The driver of the car fled away from the spot and number plate
was found on the spot. He was immediately taken to the Numed
Super Specialty Hospital, Sector -3, Greater Noida West, UP
where his MLC was prepared and thereafter he was taken to Jai
Prakash Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi
where he remained hospitalized from 12.05.2023 to 13.06.2023.
At the time of accident, he was 25 years old and used to sale food
items on Rehadi near AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi and was
earning Rs.30,000/- per month approx. Due to this accident, he
has suffered disability and unable to do any work. He has relied
upon the following documents in support of his contentions :-
• Photocopy of aadhar as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
• Educational certificate as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
• Original treatment record as Ex.PW1/3.
• Copy of treatment record as Mark A.
• Certified copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/4.
In his cross-examination by Mr. Rajesh Singh, Ld
Page No.7/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
counsel for the respondent no(s). 1 and 2, he stated that firstly his
statement was recorded at the spot and then they again enquired
from him at the hospital. He denied the suggestion that his
statement was taken only once on 30.06.2023.
This witness was also cross-examined by Mr. Brijesh
Bagga, Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 3 wherein he stated
that he has studied upto 10th class. Sachin, Sahil and himself were
in the tempo on the date of accident. They were all sitting on the
back. He was not aware whether three persons were allowed to
travel at the back of the tempo. He admitted that he has not
mentioned in affidavit that the tempo was carrying any goods or
not at the time of accident. He was not aware of the seating
capacity of the tempo. He denied the suggestion that the accident
was caused as the tempo bearing no. 2272 was overloaded. He
further denied the suggestion that there was no negligence on the
part of Creta car bearing no. DL-3CCU-7465 in causing the
accident. He denied the suggestion that accident was caused
entirely due to the negligence of the driver of tempo bearing no.
2272. He admitted that he has not filed any document pertaining
to his income or avocation. He has not received any monetary
benefit from my medi-claim policy or government agency etc.
for the injuries sustained in the accident.
14. Injured Sachin Kumar (MACT/431/23) was examined
as PW2. He deposed on the same lines as of PW1 Santosh
Page No.8/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
Kumar. He further stated that after the accident, he was
immediately taken to the Numed Super Specialty Hospital,
Sector 3, Greater Noida West, UP where his MLC was prepared
by the doctor and thereafter he was taken to Safdarjung Hospital,
New Delhi where he was hospitalized from 13.05.2023 to
24.05.2023. He also got his surgery done on 18.05.2023. He has
sustained multiple grievous injuries i.e. Open grade 2# rt. Both
bone leg W/d DNVD and other multiple grievous injuries . At the
time of accident, he was 20 years old and used to work as a fruit
seller in Noida, Uttar Pradesh and was earning Rs.25000/-. Due
to this accident, he has suffered disability and unable to do any
work and now dependent on others for daily routine work. He
has relied upon following documents in support of his
contentions :-
• Photocopy of aadhar card as Ex.PW2/1.
• Copy of marksheet as Ex.PW2/2.
• Original treatment record as Ex.PW2/3
• His disability certificate as Ex.PW2/4.
In his cross-examination by Mr. Rajesh Singh, Ld.
Counsel for the respondent no(s). 1 and 2, he stated that the
police had taken his statement on the date of accident. After the
said date, police never took his statement. He stayed in the
Safdarjung Hospital for about 11 days. He denied the suggestion
that as per the case diary, his statement was taken on 30.06.2024.
He stated that he used to work as a fruit seller on pushcart.
Page No.9/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
This witness was also cross-examined by Mr. Brijesh
Bagga, Ld. counsel for the insurance company. He stated that he
has studied upto 10th class. He stated that he is not aware of the
registration number of tempo. He did not know Sahil, Santosh or
Sanjay prior to the accident. He had met them for the first time
on the date of accident i.e. 12.05.2023. He denied the suggestion
that tempo was empty at the time of accident. He was not
carrying any goods when he boarded the tempo. He was not
aware how many persons are allowed to travel at the back of the
tempo. He admitted that his ID proof Ex.PW2/1 pertains to
champaran, Bihar. He has not filed any document to show that he
was residing in Delhi or working in Delhi. At the time of
accident, he was residing at Greater Noida, Village Rouza
Jallapur, UP. He has not paid any amount/ remuneration to the
driver of the tempo Mr. Sanjay. He denied the suggestion that the
accident was caused as the tempo was overloaded. He denied the
suggestion that there was no negligence on the part of White
Creta bearing no. DL-3CCU-7465 in causing the accident. He
denied the suggestion that the accident was caused entirely due to
the negligence of the driver of Tempo. He has not received any
monetary benefit from any mediclaim policy or government
agency etc for the injuries sustained in the accident.
15. Injured Sanjay (In MACT NO. 432/2023,) was
examined as PW3. He deposed on the similar lines as the PW1Page No.10/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
and PW2. He further stated that in this accident, he has sustained
multiple grievous injuries i.e. RTA Head injury (DBE) # B/L
Lower Limb # Shaft Femer RT. Crush injury, RT. Knee injury #
B/B LT. Leg. He was immediately taken to the Numed Super
Specialty Hospital, Sector 3, Greater Noida West, UP where his
MLC was prepared by the doctor and thereafter referred to
Heritage Hospital, Uttar Pradesh where he was hospitalized from
12.05.2023 to 02.06.2023. He has got two surgeries in left Tibia,
‘right femur rush nail fixation’ and also Right Tibia on
23.05.2023 and 26.05.2023. At the time of accident, he was 24
years old and was working as a driver in Delhi and was earning
Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to this accident, he has suffered
disability and unable to do any work and now dependent on
others for daily routine work. Because of this accident he was not
able to resume his duty/ work apart from that he has suffered
great mental and physical pain, agony and financial loss due to
the injuries suffered in the accident. He has relied upon following
documents in support of his contentions :-
• Photocopy of aadhar card as Ex.PW3/1.
• Copy of driving licence as Ex.PW3/2
• Original treatment record and medical bills as Ex.PW3/3
• Copy of educational certificate as Ex.PW3/4.
• Copy of criminal record as Mark 5.
• Disability certificate as Ex.PW3/6.
• Photocopy of medical bills as Mark 7 (colly)
• MLC and treatment record as Ex.PW3/8In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the
Page No.11/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
respondent no. 3/Insurance company, he stated that the Tempo he
was driving on 12.05.2023 bears registration no. UP-16AT-2272.
The owner of the tempo is Anees Ahmed. He admitted that he
has not filed document/ permit to show that the tempo bearing
no. UP-16AT-2272 was authorised to enter Delhi. As far as he
was aware the Tempo bearing no. UP-16AT-2272 was not
authorized to enter Delhi neither there was any permit regarding
the same. He admitted that the seating capacity for passengers as
per the RC was two only, however again said he was not aware
of the same. He stated that he has not filed any document / record
to show that he was working for gain in Delhi.
16. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners argued forcefully that
from the evidence of PWs coupled with the criminal record
produced, the petitioners have proved the fact that it was the
respondent no. 1 who had caused injuries to the injured persons
by his rash and negligent driving.
17. Ld. counsels for the respondents have contended that
accident has occurred due to the negligence of the injured
persons only.
18. It is a settled legal position that while deciding a
petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, the Claims Tribunal has to
decide negligence on the touchstone of preponderance ofPage No.12/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to the observations
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum
and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001
ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or
omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in
the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or
involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death
to a human being or damage to property would make the petition
maintainable u/s 166 & 140 of the M V Act.
19. Nevertheless, it is also a settled legal position that in a
claim petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, burden is on the
claimants/petitioners to prove negligence. The law to this effect
declared in Minu B Mehta Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan
(1977) 2 SC 441 was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Oriental
Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Variyal 2007 (5) SCC
428, which has been followed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
a recent case, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devki & Ors.,
MAC APP 165/2013 decided on 29.02.2016.
20. Certified copies of criminal proceedings filed
alongwith it are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct
under Rule 7 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008
until proved to be contrary.
Page No.13/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
21. In this regard observations made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs.
Pushpa Rana and Ors. reported in 2007 SCC online DEL 1700
has to be considered wherein it was held that :-
“the wife of the deceased had produced (1) certified
copy of criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.
955/2004 pertaining to involvement of the offending
vehicle; (2) Criminal record showing completion of
investigation of police and issue of charge-sheet under
Section 279/304-A IPC against the driver; (3) certified
copy of FIR wherein criminal case against the drive
was lodged; and (4 ) recover memo and mechanical
inspection report of the offending vehicle and vehicle
of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs
to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent.”
22. In the present claims, petitioners have filed certified
copy of chargesheet. Charge sheet has been filed against the
respondent no.1 driver of the offending vehicle. All the three
injured persons had categorically deposed about the manner and
occurrence of the accident which was due to rash and negligent
driving of the Respondent No.1. The testimony of all the injured
persons in the claim petitions has remained unrebutted and
uncontroverted. Nothing material has come up in their cross-
examination by the respondents. All the three witnesses are
supporting the testimony of each other. Investigation conducted
by the IO in the present case is also fully supporting the
testimony of all the PWs. No other version of the accident is
coming up on record except for the one raised by the petitioners.
Page No.14/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
The respondents have not examined any witness in support of
their contentions. In the absence of any averment or evidence
regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any
material depicting any negligent/ sudden act or omission on the
part of the petitioner, the only inference possible in the given
facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part
of respondent no. 1 in driving the offending vehicle at the
relevant time.
23. Further, it is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1/
driver of the aforesaid vehicle was the material witness to throw
light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the
accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter
into the witness box during the course of the inquiry. Thus, an
adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect
that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle. The driver did not enter into the
witness box to controvert the claim of the petitioner or even to
explain the circumstances of accident. He never lodged any
complaint to any authority regarding his false implication.
Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent
no.1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi)
310.
Page No.15/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
24. Ld. counsel for the insurance company in the cross-
examination of the PW3 has put a question in regard to the
permit of the vehicle to enter into Delhi. However, the same was
never argued at the time of final arguments. Even otherwise, the
accident in matter has been taken place at Noida, UP.
25. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved by
preponderance of probability that the aforesaid accident took
place due to rash and negligent driving of the Creta Car bearing
no. DL-3CCU-7465 and that the said vehicle at that time was
being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3.
Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and
against the respondents.
I S S U E No. 2
26. Now, the court has to assess as to how much
compensation be awarded to the claimants and by whom? First of
all the court has to decide as to whom the liability to pay the
compensation is fastened.
27. As the offending vehicle was being driven by
respondent no. 1, and owned by respondent no.2, so respondent
no.1 is primarily liable and respondent no.2 is vicariously liable
Page No.16/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on
record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3,
therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually liable to
compensate the petitioners/claimants for the amount.
28. The petitioners have claimed compensation in respect
of the injuries sustained by them. In a road accident, a person is
entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damages.
29. Let me assess the compensation which the claimants
are entitled for under different heads.
COMPENSATION FOR THE INJURED SACHIN KUMAR IN
MACT NO. 431/2023
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
30. As per the MLC, the petitioner has suffered grievous
injuries. The petitioner has filed medical bills to the tune of
Rs.1,680/-. Medical bills are in the name of petitioner coincide
with the period of treatment. These documents were never
disputed. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and bills place
on record, I hereby grant a sum of Rs.1,680/- towards medical
expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
Page No.17/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
31. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the
compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular
accident, observations of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Satya
Narain vs. Jai Kisan, FAO No.:709/02, date of decision:
02.02.2007 can be considered:
12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it
be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and
suffering in terms of a money value. However,
compensation which has to be paid must bear some
objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering
would be :
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected.
(c) Duration of the treatment.
Applying the above criteria to the facts of the present
case where petitioner/injured has suffered 20% permanent
physical impairment in relation to his Right Lower Limb and
keeping in view the period of hospitalization and duration of
treatment, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
would be just and fair compensation towards his pain and
sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT
CHARGES :
32. In the present case the petitioner has not placed on
record any document with regard to his special diet, conveyance
and attendant charges. However, considering his medical
Page No.18/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
condition, he must have spent some amount on special diet,
conveyance and attendant.
Looking into the injuries, I award Rs.40,000/- to the
petitioner/ injured towards his special diet, conveyance and
attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
33. The petitioner/ injured Sachin Kumar stated that at the
time of accident, he was working as a fruit seller in Noida Uttar
Pradesh and was earning Rs.25000/- per month. However, he has
not filed any documents neither led any other evidence to show
his earnings at the time of accident. As per the aadhar card of the
injured, he is a resident of Bihar. He has failed to show any
document that he was resident of Noida, UP. The injured has
filed his 10th pass certificate. Hence, in the absence of any proof
of income the minimum wages of an ‘un-skilled worker’ in Bihar
is taken into consideration which was Rs.10,088/- p.m, same is
considered as approximate earning of the injured.
The injuries on the person of petitioner were such that
he might have remained out of work for about four months.
Hence I award a sum of Rs.40,352/- (Rs.10,088/- x 4) towards
loss of income during period of treatment.
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE
DISABILITY
Page No.19/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
34. The petitioner had suffered 20% permanent physical
impairment in respect of his Right Lower Limb. It was held in
the case of “Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012)
ACC 1 (SC)” :-
“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.
The question of loss of earning capacity
Page No.20/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
resulting from amputation of one the legs in
the case of a tanker driver was considered by
this Court in K. Janardhan v. United India
Insurance Company Limited and another,
(2008) 8 SCC 518. In that case, a tanker
driver suffered serious injuries in a motor
accident and as a result, his right leg was
amputated upto the knee joint. He made a
claim under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, 1923. The Commissioner for
Workmen’s Compensation held that
disability suffered by him as a result of the
loss of the leg was 100% and awarded
compensation to him on that basis. In appeal,
the High Court, like in the present case,
referred to the Schedule to the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923 and held that the
loss of a leg on amputation amounted to
reduction in the earning capacity by 60%
and, accordingly, reduced the compensation
awarded to the tanker driver. This Court set
aside the High Court judgment and held that
the tanker driver had suffered 100%
disability and incapacity in earning his keep
as a tanker driver as his right leg was
amputated from the knee and, accordingly,
restored the order passed by the
Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation.
In K. Janardhan this Court also referred to
and relied upon an earlier decision of the
Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas
Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289, in which a
carpenter who suffered an amputation of his
left arm from the elbow was held to have
suffered complete loss of his earning
capacity.
Page No.21/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
In a more recent decision in Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343,
this Court considered in great detail the
correlation between the physical disability
suffered in an accident and the loss of
earning capacity resulting from it. In
paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment in
Raj Kumar, this Court made the following
observations:
Where the claimant suffers a permanent
disability as a result of injuries, the
assessment of compensation under the head
of loss of future earnings would depend
upon the effect and impact of such
permanent disability on his earning capacity.
The Tribunal should not mechanically apply
the percentage of permanent disability as the
percentage of economic loss or loss of
earning capacity. In most of the cases, the
percentage of economic loss, that is, 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.
Page No.22/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
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.
35. In a very recent judgment announced by the Supreme
Court of India in case title Sri Anthony alias Anthony Swamy v.
The Manging Director, K.S.R.T.C. on 10.06.2020. Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has reiterated the principles set out for
grant of compensation in cases of permanent physical functional
disability as mentioned above.
36. In the claim petition no. 431/2023, the petitioner has
suffered 20% permanent physical impairment in respect of his
Right Lower Limb. Having a disability can make it even harder.
In such cases, the effect of permanent disability on the earning
capacity of the injured has to be assessed first and after assessing
Page No.23/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
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 the earnings. As a matter of rule half of the
disability percentage has to be taken as functional disability,
therefore, I take his functional disability as 10%. As per the
Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the petitioner is 17.02.2004.
The accident took place on 12.05.2023. Hence, he was 19 years
of age at the time of accident. Taking a multiplier of ’18’, the
future loss of income comes to Rs.14,123/- (Rs.10,088/- +
Rs.10,088 x 40/100) x 12 x 18 x 10% = Rs.3,05,056/- I therefore,
award Rs.3,05,056/- to the petitioner towards Future Loss of
Income on account of permanent disability.
Loss of Amenities :
37. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner would
not be able to participate in the normal activities of his daily life
to pursue his talents, recreation interests, hobbies and evocations.
The injuries would also have an effect on his social life. I
therefore, award Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of
amenities.
The total compensation of the petitioner hence comes
out to be :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :Rs.1,680/-
PAIN & SUFFERINGS &
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :Rs.1,00,000/-
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE &
Page No.24/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
ATTENDANT :Rs.40,000/-
LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.40,352/-
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.3,05,056/-
LOSS OF AMENITIES : Rs.1,00,000/-
==========
TOTAL :Rs.5,87,088/-
===========
COMPENSATION FOR THE INJURED SANJAY @ SANJAY
RATHOR IN MACT NO. 432/2023
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
38. As per the MLC, the petitioner has suffered grievous
injuries. The petitioner has filed medical bills to the tune of
Rs.6,21,310/-. Medical bills are in the name of petitioner
coincide with the period of treatment. These documents were
never disputed. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and bills
place on record, I hereby grant a sum of Rs.6,21,310/- towards
medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
39. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the
compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular
accident, observations of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Satya
Narain vs. Jai Kisan, FAO No.:709/02, date of decision:
02.02.2007 can be considered:
12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it
be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and
suffering in terms of a money value. However,
Page No.25/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
compensation which has to be paid must bear some
objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering
would be :
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected.
(c) Duration of the treatment.
Applying the above criteria to the facts of the present
case where petitioner/injured has suffered 58% permanent
physical impairment in relation to his Both Lower Limbs and
keeping in view the period of hospitalization and duration of
treatment, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-
would be just and fair compensation towards his pain and
sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT
CHARGES :
40. In the present case the petitioner has not placed on
record any document with regard to his special diet, conveyance
and attendant charges. However, considering his medical
condition, he must have spent some amount on special diet,
conveyance and attendant.
Looking into the injuries, I award Rs.70,000/- to the
petitioner/ injured towards his special diet, conveyance and
attendant charges.
Page No.26/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
LOSS OF INCOME
41. The petitioner/ injured Sanjay stated that at the time of
accident, he was working as a driver and earning Rs.30,000/- per
month. However, he has not filed any documents or led any
evidence to show his earnings at the time of accident. As per the
aadhar card of the injured, he is a resident of Delhi. Hence, in
the absence of any proof of income the minimum wages of an
‘unskilled worker’ in Delhi is taken into consideration which was
Rs.17,234/- p.m as approximate earning of the injured.
The injuries on the person of petitioner were such that
he might have remained out of work for about eight months.
Hence I award a sum of Rs.1,37,872/- (Rs.17,234/- x 8) towards
loss of income during period of treatment.
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE
DISABILITY
42. As observed in judgments “Mohan Soni Vs. Ram
Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC) and Sri Anthony alias
Anthony Swamy v. The Manging Director, K.S.R.T.C., already
mentioned in para no(s). 34 and 35, Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has reiterated the principles set out for grant of
compensation in cases of permanent physical functional
disability.
43. In view of the same, in the present case, the petitioner
Page No.27/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
have suffered 58% permanent impairment in respect of his both
lower limbs. Having a disability can make it even harder. In such
cases, the effect of permanent disability on the earning capacity
of the injured has to be assessed first 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
the earnings. Therefore, I take his functional disability as 35% as
the injured Sanjay has suffered disability in his both lower limbs.
As per the Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the petitioner is
04.05.2000. The accident took place on 12.05.2023. Hence, he
was 23 years of age at the time of accident. Taking a multiplier
of ’18’, the future loss of income comes to Rs.24,127/-
(Rs.17,234/- + Rs.17,234 x 40/100) x 12 x 18 x 35% =
Rs.18,24,001/- I therefore, award Rs.18,24,001/- to the petitioner
towards Future Loss of Income on account of permanent
disability.
Loss of Amenities :
44. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner would
not be able to participate in the normal activities of his daily life
to pursue his talents, recreation interests, hobbies and evocations.
The injuries would also have an effect on his social life. I
therefore, award Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of
amenities.
The total compensation of the petitioner hence comes
Page No.28/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
out to be :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :Rs.6,21,310/-
PAIN & SUFFERINGS &
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :Rs.2,00,000/-
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE &
ATTENDANT :Rs.70,000/-
LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.1,37,872/-
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.18,24,001/-
LOSS OF AMENITIES : Rs.2,00,000/-
==========
TOTAL :Rs.30,53,183/-
===========
COMPENSATION FOR THE INJURED SANTOSH KUMAR
IN MACT NO. 433/2023
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
45. As per the record, the petitioner has not filed any
original medical bills despite reminders for the same being given.
Therefore, no amount can be awarded towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
46. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the
compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular
accident, observations of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Satya
Narain vs. Jai Kisan, FAO No.:709/02, date of decision:
02.02.2007 can be considered:
12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it
be to note that it is difficult to measure pain andPage No.29/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
suffering in terms of a money value. However,
compensation which has to be paid must bear some
objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering
would be :
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected.
(c) Duration of the treatment.
Applying the above criteria to the facts of the present
case where petitioner/injured has suffered 83% permanent
physical impairment in relation to his Both Lower Limbs and
keeping in view the period of hospitalization and duration of
treatment, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
would be just and fair compensation towards his pain and
sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT
CHARGES :
47. In the present case the petitioner has not placed on
record any document with regard to his special diet, conveyance
and attendant charges. However, considering his medical
condition, he must have spent some amount on special diet,
conveyance and attendant.
Looking into the injuries, I award Rs.1,00,000/- to the
petitioner/ injured towards his special diet, conveyance and
attendant charges.
Page No.30/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
LOSS OF INCOME
48. The petitioner/ injured stated that at the time of
accident, he used to sell food items on Rehadi near AIIMS
Hospital and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, he
has not filed any documents or led any evidence to show his
earnings at the time of accident. He has filed copy of 10 th
Ex.PW1/X-1. As per the aadhar card of the injured, he is the
resident of Delhi. Hence, in the absence of any proof of income
the minimum wages of an ‘unskilled worker’ in Delhi is taken
into consideration which was Rs.17,234/- p.m, same is
considered as approximate earning of the injured.
The injuries on the person of petitioner were such that
he might have remained out of work for about ten months.
Hence I award a sum of Rs.1,72,340/- (Rs.17,234/- x 10) towards
loss of income during period of treatment.
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE
DISABILITY
49. The petitioner had suffered 83% permanent physical
impairment in respect of his Both Lower Limbs.
50. As already observed in para no.(s) 34 and 35, Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has reiterated the principles set out for
grant of compensation in cases of permanent physical functional
disability as mentioned above.
Page No.31/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
51. In the present case, the petitioner has suffered 83%
permanent physical impairment in respect of his Both Lower
Limbs. Having a disability can make it even harder. In such
cases, the effect of permanent disability on the earning capacity
of the injured has to be assessed first 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
the earnings. Therefore, I take his functional disability as 60% as
the injured Santosh has suffered disability in his both lower
limbs. As per the Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the petitioner
is 25.08.1997. The accident took place on 12.05.2023. Hence, he
was 26 years of age at the time of accident. Taking a multiplier
of ’17’, the future loss of income comes to Rs.24,128/-
(Rs.17,234/- + Rs.17,234 x 40/100) x 12 x 17 x 60% =
Rs.29,53,267/- I therefore, award Rs.29,53,267/- to the petitioner
towards Future Loss of Income on account of permanent
disability.
Loss of Amenities :
52. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner would
not be able to participate in the normal activities of his daily life
to pursue his talents, recreation interests, hobbies and evocations.
The injuries would also have an effect on his social life. I
therefore, award Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of
Page No.32/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
amenities.
The total compensation of the petitioner hence comes
out to be :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :Nil.
PAIN & SUFFERINGS &
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :Rs.3,00,000/-
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE &
ATTENDANT :Rs.1,00,000/-
LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.1,72,340/-
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.29,53,267/-
LOSS OF AMENITIES : Rs.2,00,000/-
==========
TOTAL :Rs.37,25,607/-
===========
RELIEF
53. In view of my findings, In MACT No. 431/23, I award
Rs.5,87,088/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand
Eighty Eight only) to the injured Sachin Kumar. In MACT No.
432/2023, I award Rs.30,53,183/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Fifty
Three Thousand One Hundred Eighty Three only) to the injured
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor. In MACT no. 433/2023, I award
Rs.37,25,607/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Twenty Five
Thousand Six Hundred Seven only) to the injured Santosh
Kumar as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of filing the petitions till its realisation.
Page No.33/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
IN MACT NO. 431/23 Sachin Kumar versus Utkarsh Singh and
ors.
54. A sum of Rs.5,87,088/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty
Seven Thousand Eighty Eight only) along-with the interest @
9% p.a. is awarded to the petitioner Sachin Kumar.
Entire amount be released to him in his saving bank
account.
IN MACT NO. 432/23 Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor versus Utkarsh
Singh and ors.
55. A sum of Rs.30,53,183/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Fifty
Three Thousand One Hundred Eighty Three only) along-with the
interest @ 9% p.a. is awarded to the petitioner Sanjay @ Sanjay
Rathor.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.16,00,000/-
(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs) is kept in the form of monthly FDR of
Rs.30,000/- each. Remaining amount i.e. Rs.14,53,183/- shall be
released to him in his bank account near his place of residence.
IN MACT NO. 433/23 Santosh Kumar versus Utkarsh Singh and
ors.
56. A sum of Rs.37,25,607/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs
Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred Seven only) along-with the
interest @ 9% p.a. is awarded to the petitioner Santosh Kumar.
Page No.34/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.26,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Only) is kept in the form of monthly
FDR of Rs.30,000/- each. Remaining amount i.e. Rs.11,25,607/-
shall be released to him in his bank account near his place of
residence.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF
INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
57. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded
amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by
Hon’ble High Court, respondent no.3/ Insurance company is
directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the
petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex
Branch, against account of petitioner within two months from
today, failing which respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay future
interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed
period).
58. The respondent no.3 is directed to credit the amount
directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District
Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have
been provided to the Ld. counsel for the insurance company.
59. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank
Page No.35/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of
RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING A/c
35195787436 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code
110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation
of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioners.
60. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD
AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF
THE ‘MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED
PROCEDURE'(MCTAP)
61. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State
Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to
keep the awarded amount in the “fixed deposit / saving account”
in the following manner :-
1. The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the
petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their
saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court
Branch, New Delhi.
2. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted
to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank
shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to
facilitate identity.
3. No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without
the permission of this Court.
4. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the
Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book
shall be given to the petitioner/claimant alongwith the
photocopy of the FDR’s .
5. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to
Page No.36/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
6. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the
said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this
Court.
7. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in
this Court.
8. On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall
transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State
Bank of India, according to their convenience.
9. Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents
for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed
Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India,
Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
10.The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled
by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs.
11.The bank is also directed to keep the money received from
the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the
FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the
benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for
the said period.
12.The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket
branch is directed not to release any amount to the
petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal
in terms of the order of the Hon’ble High Court in FAO
No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017,
41125-41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh
& Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount
including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be
released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly in
the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank
nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have
been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same
details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District
Court Saket branch.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 3 /
INSURANCE COMPANY
Page No.37/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
• The Respondent no.3 is directed to file the compliance
report of its having deposited the awarded amount with
State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal
within two months from today.
• The Respondent no.3 is directed to furnish a copy of this
award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the
Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as
to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket
Court Branch to have the identification of the
claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been
passed.
• The Respondent no.3 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner
about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the
claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the
claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to
facilitate him to withdraw the same.
• Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant
who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State
Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary
compliance after his having received the notice of the
deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no.3.
• The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent
no.3/insurance company for 04.08.2025.
Page No.38/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
FORM IV-B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
QUA THE INJURED YOUNIS
Date of accident : 12.05.2023
Name of the injured : Sachin Kumar
Age of the injured: 21 Years
Nature of injury : Grievous with 20% disability in
respect of his right lower limb.
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Rs.1,680/-
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs.40,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of Income during the period of Rs. 40,352/-
treatment
v Any other loss which may require any --
special treatment or aid to the injured for the
rest of his life.
2 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock —
ii Pain and suffering & enjoyment of life Rs.1,00,000/-
iii Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/-
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects —
v Loss of marriage prospects --
vi Compensation on account of permanent Rs.3,05,056/-
disability
Page No.39/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature —
of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Future Loss of Income —
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.5,87,088/-
5 RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED : @9% per annum
From the date of filing of petition till actual
realization of principal amount awarded.
6 Award amount released Entire amount be
released to the
injured Sachin
Kumar
7 Next date for compliance of the award. 04.08.2025
FORM IV-B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
QUA THE INJURED SANJAY @ SANJAY RATHOR
Date of accident : 12.05.2023
Name of the injured : Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor
Age of the injured: 25 Years
Nature of injury : Grievous with 58% disability in
respect of his both lower limbs.
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Rs.6,21,310/-
Page No.40/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs.70,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of Income during the period of Rs. 1,37,872/-
treatment
v Any other loss which may require any —
special treatment or aid to the injured for the
rest of his life.
2 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock —
ii Pain and suffering & enjoyment of life Rs.2,00,000/-
iii Loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000/-
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects —
v Loss of marriage prospects --
vi Compensation on account of permanent Rs.18,24,001/-
disability
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature --
of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Future Loss of Income —
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.30,53,183/-
5 RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED : @9% per annum
From the date of filing of petition till actual
realization of principal amount awarded.
6 Award amount released Rs.14,53,183/- plus
interest @ 9% p.a.
7 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.16,00,000/-
8 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Some amount be
to the claimant(s) released to the
petitioners and
remaining be kept in
Page No.41/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
the form of fixed
deposit.
9 Next date for compliance of the award. 04.08.2025
FORM IV-B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
QUA THE INJURED SANTOSH KUMAR
Date of accident : 12.05.2023
Name of the injured : Santosh Kumar
Age of the injured: 28 Years
Nature of injury : Grievous with 83% disability in
respect of his both lower limbs.
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Nil
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs.1,00,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of Income during the period of Rs. 1,72,340/-
treatment
v Any other loss which may require any --
special treatment or aid to the injured for the
rest of his life.
2 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock —
Page No.42/43
MACT/431/2023
Sachin Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/432/2023
Sanjay @ Sanjay Rathor vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
MACT/433/2023
Santosh Kumar vs. Utkarsh Singh and ors.
ii Pain and suffering & enjoyment of life Rs.3,00,000/-
iii Loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000/-
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects —
v Loss of marriage prospects --
vi Compensation on account of permanent Rs.29,53,267/-
disability
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature --
of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Future Loss of Income —
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.37,25,607/-
5 RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED : @9% per annum
From the date of filing of petition till actual
realization of principal amount awarded.
6 Award amount released Rs.11,25,607/- plus
interest @ 9% p.a.
7 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.26,00,000/-
8 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Some amount be
to the claimant(s) released to the
petitioners and
remaining be kept in
the form of fixed
deposit.
9 Next date for compliance of the award. 04.08.2025
Digitally
signed by
sudesh
sudesh kumar
Pronounced in the open court kumar Date:
2025.05.28
17:02:00
on 28th MAY 2025 +0530
(SUDESH KUMAR)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Page No.43/43
[ad_2]
Source link