Delhi District Court
Mool Chandra Manya (Dar) vs Md Imran (209/22 Crp) on 31 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 979/2022
FIR no. 209/2022
PS : C.R. Park
U/s : 279/338 IPC
CNR No.DLSE010112932022
Mool Chandra Maurya
S/o Sh. Surya Lal
R/o H. No.17/373, Gali No.17,
H Block, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi. .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohd. Imran
S/o Mohd. Faruqui
R/o H. No. K12A, 3rd Floor,
Khirki Extn.,
New Delhi. .....R-1/ driver-cum-owner
3. TATA AIG Insurance Company Ltd.
Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi. .....R-2/Ins. Co.
Date of accident : 09.06.2022
Date of filing of DAR : 23.11.2022
Date of Decision : 31.01.2025
AWARD
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Detailed Accident Report was filed by police in terms of
provisions of Motor Vehicle Act in respect of injuries sustained
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 1 of 42
by Sh. Mool Chand (hereinafter called the claimant) on account
of alleged rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing
Registration No.DL8CAY 5164 (hereinafter called the offending
vehicle) driven and owned by Mohd. Imran (hereinafter called
the Respondent No.1) and and insured with TATA AIG General
Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter called the insurance
company), which is being treated as Claim Petition in view of the
provisions contained in such Act.
2. Information regarding accident in question was received at
PS C.R. Park on 27.07.2022, when complainant Mool Chandra
Maurya S/o Sh. Surya Lal had visited the Police Station and filed
a complaint with ASI Deepak, wherein he stated that on
09.06.2022 at about 9.45 a.m. while commuting from his house
to Deshbandhu College at about 9 a.m. on his motorcycle bearing
Registration No. DL3SDF 8449, he took a right turn from
Chirag Delhi Flyover towards Nehru Place on Outer Ring Road
whereupon he was hit by a car bearing Registration No.
DL8CAY 5164 because of which he fell down and was later
taken to Majidiya Hospital in the said car itself. He alleged that
the accident happened on account of rash and negligent driving
of the said car which was being driven by one Mohd. Imran S/o
Mohd. Faruqui, who had rammed into his motorcycle from the
rear side. On 09.06.2022, DD No. 75A was received in respect of
MLC of Pandit Mool Chandra Maurya from Batra Hospital,
wherein he was intimated that the patient is still under treatment
and that he would file a written complaint as and when he felt
well. Subsequently, as the matter could not be settled with the
driver and owner of the said car that the claimant wants to lodge
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 2 of 42
a complaint. FIR was registered under relevant Provisions of
Law. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 were recorded.
The accidental vehicle and offending vehicle were seized and
taken into police possession and were got mechanically
inspected. Notice under Section 133 M.V. Act was served upon
owner, who confirmed that he himself was driving the vehicle at
the time of accident. He also produced the relevant documents
pertaining to the offending vehicle which were got verified. He
was charge-sheeted for causing injuries to injured/claimant in an
accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle. DAR was also filed before this Tribunal.
REPLY:
3. Notice of DAR was issued to the contesting parties. Reply
was filed by Respondent no.1/driver-cum-owner, who stated that
he was driving with valid DL and valid insurance policy and
therefore is not liable to pay any compensation. Legal offer was
filed by Ld. Counsel for insurance company underlying that it did
not raise any statutory defence.
ISSUES :
4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 27.04.2023 :
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a
road traffic accident on 09.06.2022 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL8CAY
5164 driven and owned by R1 and insured with
R2? OPP.
ii). Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation and if so, to what extent and from
whom? OPP
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 3 of 42
iii). Relief.
5. An application for assessment of disability was allowed
vide order dated 27.04.2023 against which claimant was assessed
with 60% visual disability vide communication dated 09.08.2023
addressed by Chairperson, Disability Board, Pt. Madan Mohan
Malaviya Hospital.
EVIDENCE
6. Matter was then listed for evidence before Local
Commissioner. Injured examined himself as PW1 and tendered
his evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon his Aadhar
Card Ex.PW1/1, Driving License Ex.PW1/2, PAN Card
Ex.PW1/3, ITRs for the Assessment Years 2021-22, 2022-23 and
2023-24 Ex.PW1/4 (colly), Salary Certificate Ex.PW1/5,
Educational Proofs Ex.PW1/6 (colly), Appointment Letter issued
by LIC and LIC Agent ID card Ex.PW1/7 (colly), MLC mark-X,
DAR Ex.PW1/9, OPD cards Ex.PW1/10 (colly), Discharge
Summaries Mark-A, Medical Bills Mark-B and Letter issued by
TPA Mark-C. None appeared on behalf of R-1 to cross-examine
the witness. He was extensively cross-examined by Ld. Counsel
for insurance company. Petitioners evidence was closed and
matter was listed for respondents evidence.
7. None of the respondents chose to lead evidence in their
defence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. Final Arguments were advanced. Ld. Counsel for claimant
argued that the accident happened only due to speedy and
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 4 of 42
reckless driving of the Respondent no.1 at the time of accident.
He also argued that legal offer has already been filed by
insurance company and therefore, there is no dispute in respect of
rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no.1 and as
such, no statutory defence has been raised by the insurance
company and therefore the claimant is entitled to fair
compensation payable by the insurance company. He has also
argued that the injured has suffered substantial disability, which
has adversely affected his functional efficacy and earning
capacity.
9. Ld. Counsel for insurance company, on the other hand, has
argued that the accident happened on account of negligent
driving on the part of injured himself which is why he did not file
the complaint for about two months. He also argued that claimant
has not placed on record any proof of his income including the
ITRs and therefore, minimum wage criteria has to be applied.
DISCUSSION
10. On the basis of material on record and arguments
addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
"Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road
traffic accident on 09.06.2022 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL8CAY
5164 driven and owned by R1 and insured with R2?
OPP."
11. What is required to be ascertained is whether rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle resulted in accident which
caused injuries to the claimant.
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 5 of 42
12. It has been held in catena of cases that negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the
proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the
proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are
not applicable (support drawn from the case of Bimla Devi &
Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors [(2009) 13
SC 530, [Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India
Assurance Company Limited, [2001 ACJ 421 SC], [National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana cited as [2009 ACJ
287 Del].
13. PW1/injured deposed that speedy and rashly driven
offending vehicle had rammed into the rear of his motorcycle
when he was taking a U-turn on Outer Ring Road near Chirag
Delhi Flyover causing serious injuries all over his body. During
cross-examination, he admitted that the site plan was prepared at
his instance and that spot of accident was correct depicted in the
said site plan. He also admitted that he had taken right turn from
Chirag Delhi Flyover when accident took place. He also clarified
that the site of the accident was about 100 mtrs. from where the
slope of Flyover ended. He also responded that after the slope of
Flyover, there were two lanes on the road where accident took
place and that, he was driving in the right lane of the road next to
the divider as he was supposed to take a right turn towards Savitri
Cinema. He also admitted that he had changed his lane from left
to right in order to take a turn. He however declined the
suggestion that he had abruptly changed his lane from left to
right without giving any indication which is why he colluded
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 6 of 42
with the offending vehicle. He also denied the suggestion that the
accident had taken place due to his own negligence as he was
driving without following traffic rules and regulations at the time
of accident.
14. Testimony of PW1 clarifies that the accident happened
after the slope of the flyover, however there is no evidence that
the PW1 had abruptly changed the lane from left to right without
giving any indicator which is why the accident happened. There
is no independent evidence about any speedy or callous driving
on the part of the claimant driving the accidental vehicle. There is
no evidence that claimant acted unreasonably under the
circumstances or he failed to take necessary precautions which
could have averted the accident. There is no dispute in the
involvement or the identification of the offending vehicle as the
injured was in fact rushed to hospital in the said vehicle itself by
the owner of the car himself who was driving at the time of
accident. DD entry was received from the hospital when the
injured was taken for treatment and therefore, it cannot be stated
that accident did not happen or that he received injuries on some
other counts. The only other person who could have contested the
rashness on the part of the claimant or the allegations against the
driver of the offending vehicle was respondent no.1 himself who
chose not to testify independently about the circumstances
leading to the accident or about the infractions on the part of the
claimant which caused the accident.
15. PW1 has also tendered explanation as to why he did not
file the complaint with police immediately after the accident. As
such, independent intimation was already given to the police in
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 7 of 42
respect of the MLC pertaining to the injury sustained in the
accident by claimant. There seems to be no variance and
contradictions in the testimony of injured PW1. Driver was also
charge-sheeted for causing harm on account of rash driving on a
public way.
16. It is also settled that if driver of offending vehicle does not
enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against
him as observed in the case of Cholamandlam insurance
company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310.
17. In view of the discussion made above, it is evident that the
injured sustained serious injuries on account of unmindful and
reckless driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent
no.1/driver. Issue in hand is accordingly decided in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation
and if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP"
18. Section 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold
an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. Same 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
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 8 of 42
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 X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of
the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any
case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the
award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person
who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award
shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the
award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount
awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may
direct."
19. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
20. The basic principle 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. [Support drawn from Govind Ram Yadav vs. New
India Insurance Company Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683] .
21. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 9 of 42
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty &
Anr., (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"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 be done by a judicious
approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and
arbitrariness.. ..."
22. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755 , made following
observations:
"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 likely to be suffered in future; (ii)
damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life
which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 10 of 42
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. Certain principles for delineating just compensation were
enumerated in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.,
(2011) 1 SCC 343, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Following observations are relevant in the context:
"40.General principles relating to compensation in injury
cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the
Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just,
which means that compensation should, to the extent
possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. The object of awarding
damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of
wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable
and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have
to assess the damages objectively and exclude from
consideration any speculation or fancy, though some
conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its
consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss
which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means
that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full
life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he
would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to
earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See
C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3
SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest
Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC
(Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970)
2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]
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:
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 11 of 42
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be
awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is
only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific
medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the
claimant, that compensation will be granted under any
of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of
future earnings on account of permanent disability,
future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss
of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of
life.
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.
Assessment of future loss of earnings due to
permanent disability
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
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 12 of 42
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) 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.
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 of injuries, the assessment of compensation
under the head of loss of future earnings would
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 13 of 42
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
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 14 of 42
disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the functioning of the
entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered
by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent
disability then there is no question of proceeding
further and determining the loss of future earning
capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is
permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain
its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual
extent of permanent disability of the claimant based
on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether
such permanent disability has affected or will affect
his earning capacity.
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 beMACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 15 of 42
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, depending upon the nature of
profession, occupation or job, age, education and
other factors.””
24. The above-said principles have been placed reliance upon
in a recent judgment reported as Sidram Vs. The Divisional
Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr., arising out of
SLP (Civil) no. 19277 of 2018 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India as decided on 16.11.2022.
25. It is settled proposition of law as held in catena of
judgments that “just compensation” should include all elements
that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or
he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no
amount of money or other material compensation can erase the
trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious
accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary
compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society
assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the
victims who have to face their lives.
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 16 of 42
PECUNIARY DAMAGES
26. 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:
(i) Expenditure on Medical Treatment:
PW1 deposed in his evidentiary affidavit that all his
medical bills have already been reimbursed by TPA, other than
medical bill of Rs.31,607/- out of which Rs.11,779/- was
reimbursed, however, remaining amount of Rs.19,828/- was not
reimbursed. Another bill of Rs.7,677/- out of which Rs.490/- was
reimbursed. Remaining amount of Rs.7,187/- had not been
reimbursed. Accordingly, amount of Rs.27,015/- is being granted
as the same was not got reimbursed by claimant. A sum of
Rs.5,000/- is additionally awarded towards the sundry medical
expenses. Hence claimant is awarded Rs.32,015/-.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance :
No bill for conveyance has been filed however claimant
has affirmed that he had spent more than Rs.3 Lakhs on his
treatment, special diet and conveyance. He also stated that he
had to visit hospital several times for his treatment. Considering
that the nature of injury sustained and the period of treatment, an
amount of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards conveyance.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet :
There is no prescription for special diet, however he
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 17 of 42
affirmed that he was prescribed protein rich and nutritious diet
for prompt recovery. The nature of injuries are grievous and good
diet for early recovery would have been necessary. Claimant
suffered substantial disability. An amount of Rs.20,000/- is
awarded towards special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant :
PW1 has not deposed anything about attendant charges he
had to entail, however has mentioned that he had sustained
grievous injuries all over his body and also remained admitted at
Batra Hospital for more than six days and later treated at AIIMS
and Gurunanak Eye Care Center, Delhi. Considering the nature
of injuries, it is evident that he would have required services of
the attendant all through the period of his hospitalisation and
treatment. It is settled that even though any formal nursing
attendant is not engaged still the services provided by family
members also have to be fairly compensated. Claimant suffered
60% visual disability apart from other injuries on his body. An
amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards cost of
nursing/attendant.
(v) Loss of Income/earning :
PW1 has deposed that he was working as a Salesman with
Leo Mart at Neb Sarai, New Delhi on a salary of Rs.18,000/- per
month as on the date of accident and could not resume his work
for about three months. He also deposed that he was working as
LIC/GIC Agent as part time work, earning more than Rs.15,000/-
per month. Claimant has filed his PAN Card which is Ex.PW1/3,
Income Tax Returns acknowledgment for the Assessment Years
2021-2022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. He has also filedMACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 18 of 42
certification by the Proprietor/Authorized Signatory of Leo Mart
as Ex.PW1/5 certifying that he was employed as a Salesman at
Leo Mart for about last two years on a monthly salary of
Rs.18,000/- per month. Claimant has also filed his educational
qualification certificate pertaining to High School and
Intermediate Examinations which are Ex.PW1/6 (colly). He has
also filed Statement of Marks pertaining to Graduation from
University of Delhi and Marks Certificate of MA Examination
from Himachal Pradesh University, wherein he was required to
reapper in two of the courses. He has also filed Letter of
Appointment Ex.PW1/7, wherein he was authorized to act as an
Insurance Agent from the year 2018 and 2021 for procuring or
soliciting insurance business for the Life Insurance Corporation.
It can be inferred from the said letter that he was already working
as an Agent and his application for continuation as an Agent was
allowed vide correspondence dated 02.05.2018 placed on record
as Ex.PW1/7. He has filed copy of the Agent Identity Card which
was issued on 24.03.2015 and copy of the license to act as an
Insurance Agent under Part-II of the Insurance Act, 1938 issued
by IRDA. During his cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he
has not filed any computation sheet of the ITRs placed on record
and that, he has not brought TDS certificates to show that he was
earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month from LIC/GIC work,
however, the denied the suggestion that he was not doing any
work of LIC and GIC and was not earning Rs.15,000/- per
month. He clarified that he was being paid salary in cash,
however, he admitted that he has no receipts/vouchers to show
that he was being paid salary in cash. The Gross Total Income of
deceased in Assessment Year 2023-24 was declared to beMACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 19 of 42
Rs.3,19,220/-, for AY 2022-2023 was Rs.3,85,000/- and for AY
2021-22 income was declared to be Rs.3,11,790/-. It is evident
that there is only a marginal increase of income declared in the
subsequent year and as such all ITRs look substantially in
consonance with each other. Considering the nature of financial
activity indulged by the deceased, it is considered prudent to
rather take an average of the three ITRs relied in prove on behalf
of petitioner for the two financial years immediately preceding to
the accident of victim. Support drawn from ICICI Lombard vs.
Ajay Kumar Mohanty Civil Appeal No. 7181 of 2015).
Therefore, the average annual income after considering the above
mentioned GTIs comes out to be Rs.3,38,706/- which is taken as
annual income for the purpose of calculation of quantum of
compensation, as per which his monthly income comes to
Rs.28,225/-. PW1 deposed that he has not been able to resume
his work for three months on account of injury sustained.
Considering the nature of injury mentioned, it can be inferred
that he would not have resumed his work atleast three months
post accident. Thus, loss of income during treatment is computed
to be Rs.28,225/- x 3, which comes to Rs.84,676/- .
(vi) Loss of future income/earning : (a) It is settled that a person is required to be compensated not
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, hisMACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 20 of 42
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.
(b) Claimant was directed to be assessed for his disability vide
order dated 27.04.2023. Disability Assessment Certificate was
received, as per which he was opined to have suffered 60%
permanent visual impairment in relation to his visual disability.
(c) 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)
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.”
(d) The term ‘disability’ means the decrements to the
functional efficacy of body of injured whereas ‘functioning’
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 21 of 42
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
living a normal life in particular set of circumstance and making
his living by engaging in any work has suffered disability which
might impede 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.
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 22 of 42
(e) 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.
(f) Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 has already been reproduced above.
(g) 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.”
(h) The question of assessment of impact of disability on the
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 23 of 42
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
evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to
reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity.
(i) 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
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 24 of 42
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 percent. 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% 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%
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.
(j) In the present case, it is noted that petitioner/injured was
employed as Salesman and was also working as LIC Agent. Ld.
Counsel for insurance company stated that he has not suffered
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 25 of 42
with any functional disability as disability in one eye can always
make up for other and the person can carry out all the work
without any difficulty, however, in Disability Report, disability in
any particular eye has not been mentioned, therefore, it cannot be
stated that the person would be able to work as before without
any difficulty. No matter what kind of work the person engages
in and even for pursuing daily routine activities, visual disability
would always impede his smooth and effective functionality on
personal / professional as well as social front as a person and also
in his avocation. It is likely to adversely affect his performance
on account of restrictions on vision oriented tasks, like driving
which is basic to his kind of job profile. Having regard to nature
of injury and the nature of work that he used to engage in, at the
time of accident, his functional disability is assessed to be 40% in
relation to his earning capacity.
(vii) Future Prospect
(a) In case of Pappu Deo Yadav (supra), it is also held 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 aMACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 26 of 42
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,
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.
.
.
(xviii). 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.
.
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 27 of 42
.
….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”.
(b) PW1 in his deposition has relied upon his Aadhar
Ex.PW1/1, as per which his date of birth is 15.06.1972. The date
of accident is 09.06.2022. As such, on the date of accident he
was about 49 years of age on the date of accident, therefore,
applicable multiplier would be 13. (Reference drawn from the
case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr.
SLP (C) no. 8648 of 2007, decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India). Since the injured was under the age of 50 (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 @ 25 % upon application of category of
”self-employed or on a fixed salary”.
Multiplier:
(c) 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 withMACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 28 of 42
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.”
(d) 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 @
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.
(e) 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 49 (for age group below 50 years).
(f) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 29 of 42
under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(a) Annual income (Rs. 28,225/- x 12) = Rs.3,38,700/-
(b) Future prospect
(25% of Rs.3,38,700/-) = Rs. 84,675/-
-----------------
(c) Total = Rs.4,23,375/-
-----------------
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs. 4,23,375/-
(e) Hence, the ‘Total Loss of Future Income’ shall be :-
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
40% (Rs.4,23,375/- x 13) = Rs. 22,03,110/-
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
28. 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
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. Regarding non-
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 30 of 42
pecuniary loss, following was stated in Halsbury’s Laws of
England, 4 th Edition, Vol. 12 (page 446):
“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.
(As also referred in the case of Sidram…………………)
7. In Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of
India, (1999) 6 SCC 667, the Supreme Court 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 says, is generally more important than money: it
is the best that a court can do.
8. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274, the
Supreme Court 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.
(referred and relied in the case of A. Rupin Manohar Through Sh. S.
Anandha vs Mohd. Ansari & Ors. on 17 August, 2017 JUDGMENT DELHI
HIGH COURT
29. To sum up, Compensation under non-pecuniary heads
involves objective assessment of the damages in a bid to undo the
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 31 of 42
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:
Damages for pain, suffering as well as mental and physical shock
on account of injuries:
30. 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. Although
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 (supra) 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 asMACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 32 of 42
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.
31. 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 right 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)]
32. 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, itMACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 33 of 42
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).
33. The injured has suffered 60% visual disability. 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. It is a case of substantial permanent disability
which is likely to have adverse impact on mental, emotional and
psychological health of a person having to live with the feeling
that he is no longer a normal 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.1,00,000/- is awarded to the injured against pain,
suffering and and trauma sustained in the accident.
Loss of amenities of life:
34. It compensates the victim on account of his inability to
enjoy the basis amenities of life as any other normal person can,
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 34 of 42
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 Vijay
Kumar 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….”
35. Injured would not be able to perform several tasks on his
own and has become dependent even for basic activities upon his
family members or the services of the attendants, his personal
identity as well as his social identity considering the prejudice
such people are likely to face specially against the backdrop of
their educational, family and social settings, he is going to
evidently lose much more than what we can possibly
contemplate. Least would be to mention that he would be far
from the sense of normalcy of an average human being.
Accordingly an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards loss
of amenities considering the nature of injury and the extent of
disability.
36. 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
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 35 of 42
concerned:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 32,015/-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 15,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.20,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.50,000/-
(v) Loss of income : Rs.84,676/-
(vi) Loss of future Income: Rs.22,03,110/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Compensation of Pain and Rs.1,00,000/-
suffering as well as mental and
physical shock
(ii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.20,000/-
(iii) Disfiguration : Nil
Total Compensation Rs.25,24,801/-
Interest As directed below
37. It may be noted that in the judgment of Ram Charan &
Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no.
433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022 it was noted regarding rate of
interest:
“25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for the
applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding
principles for the grant of interest. In Abati Bezbaruah Vs.
Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148, the
following was held while interpreting section 171 of the
MV Act, 1988:-
Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A. P. Mohanty,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, in
support of his contentions. No ratio has been laid down in
any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the
rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensationMACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 36 of 42
as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must
be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors
including inflation, change of economy, policy being
adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how
long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the
victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of
enjoyment of life etc. into consideration. No rate of interest
is fixed under Section 171 of the MV Act 1988. Varying
rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High
Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even
if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is
consequential in the eye of the law. Interest liability is
compensation for forbearance or detention of money and
that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out
of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No
principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be
fixed to have a general application in motor accident
provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the
Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of
interest depends upon the statutory provisions mercantile
usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor Sec.
4-A(3) of Workmen’s Compensation Act are applicable in
the matter of fixing are of interest in a claim under the
Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at
different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any
hard and fast rule in awarding interest and the award of
interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal of the
High Court as indicated above.”
38. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, including in the
case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27
July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of
SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9% per
annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case
from the date of filing of DAR till realization.
Liability :-
39. No statutory defence has been raised. Offending vehicle
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 37 of 42
has been held to be validly insured at the time of accident.
Insurance company is thus liable to indemnify owner against
liability incurred by him/his behalf with simple interest @ 9%
p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization.( If
there is any order regarding exclusion of interest for specific
period, same be complied at the time of calculation of award
amount. Further, if any auction proceed is received, same be
adjusted in the final award amount).
40. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of
India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of
RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SOUTH EAST – 02,
A/c No. 42706870765, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code
110002342 under intimation to the Nazir along with calculation
of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD
AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ‘MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL
AGREED PROCEDURE’ (MCTAP).
41. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003
titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor
Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) which has been made
effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018
also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one
of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank
of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 38 of 42
accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
42. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award
amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is
to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the
petitioner.
43 At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of
A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 378:
“……In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court
issued certain guidelines in order to “safeguard the feed
from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to
ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation”.
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long
term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory
only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows.
In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to
consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting
purchase of any movable property such as agricultural
implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in
such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is
actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse
to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants,
the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of
compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the
Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that
the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding
an existing business or for purchasing some property for
earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or
part of the amount of compensation to the claimant
provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is
invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid.
In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest
the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this
Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal
may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i),
whereas in the guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 39 of 42
expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in
the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the
procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having
regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the
society to which the claimant belongs and such other
considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest
of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the
compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount
of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal
not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in
long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole
amount in the case of literate persons. However, the
Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are
mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount
of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed
deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical
approach without understanding and appreciating the
distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors,
illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semi
literate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the
above guidelines were issued by this Court only to
safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the
minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to
be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines
were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were
to take a rigid stand while considering an application
seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass
appropriate orders after examining each case on its own
merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is
no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by
the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or
susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of
compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the
Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner,
ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by
this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants.
Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are
automatically ordering investment of the amount of
compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording
that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the
strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such
other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to
direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant
and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation
awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant’s
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 40 of 42
application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation
in a mechanical manner and without proper application of
mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to
the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of
the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the
amount of compensation should be invested in long term
fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can
release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant
even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and
approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the
interest of justice…..”
44. In this background of legal position, it may be noted that in
present case, claimant suffered injury and incurred expenses
including on medical expenses, special diet, conveyance. Further,
in the considered view of this Tribunal, the purpose of such
Award is to compensate the petitioner for the financial loss
already sustained that is to reimburse the same, in the same
manner in which he would have otherwise earned.
45. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances
involved in the present case and the above-said guidelines laid
down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble Supreme
Court, out of award amount, an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, is kept
in form of monthly FDRs of Rs.20,000/- each. Remaining
amount of Rs.5,24,801/- along with interest, be released to the
petitioner/injured in his bank account near his place of residence
as per rule/ directions.
FORM -VI-B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN
THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 09.06.2022
MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 41 of 42
2 Name of injured Mool Chandra Maurya
3 Age of the injured 49 years
4 Occupation of the As per record
injured
5 Income of the injured As per record
6 Nature of injury Grievous
7 Medical treatment As per record.
taken by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization
9 Whether any Yes.
permanent disability?
46. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The
copy of award be also sent to the DLSA and Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate.
47. Put up for compliance on 04.03.2025.
Announced in the open court
on 31.01.2025
(Shelly Arora)
PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket
New Delhi
Digitally signed
by SHELLY
SHELLY ARORA
ARORA Date:
2025.01.31
16:08:17 +0530MACT No. 979/2022 Mool Chandra Maurya vs. Mohd. Imran Page No. 42 of 42
[ad_1]
Source link