Delhi District Court
Alok Mishra (I) (Fir 831/2022/Kotwali) vs Mohd Shahrukh (Chola M/S Gene Insu) on 21 January, 2025
DLCT010002622023
Presented on : 05-01-2023
Registered on : 10-01-2023
Decided on : 21-01-2025
Duration : 02 Years
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA.
MACT NO. 31/23
AALAOK MISHRA
S/o Sh.Dhnesh Mishra
R/o H.No. L-22/40, Jai Prakash Nagar,
Gali No. 9, Gondha,
Delhi-110053. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. MOHD. SHAHRUKH
S/o Mohd. Shamim
R/o H.No. 63A, Gali No. 02,
New Lahore Colony,
Shastri Nagar,Delhi. (Driver-cum-Owner)
2. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.
Plot No. 39, 2nd Floor, Samyak Tower,
Karol Bagh, Delhi (Insurer).
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Nitin Goel)
.....Respondents
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 1/24
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:24:53 +0530
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles
(fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as
under:-
1. Date of the accident 15/09/22
2. Date of filing of Form-I – First Accident Report N.A.
(FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A.
Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A.
from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII – Detailed Accident 10/01/23
Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not
by the Insurance Company mentioned
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company submitted his report within
30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No
the part of the Designated officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer N.A.
of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 18/01/25
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes
open savings bank account(s) near their place
of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 10/01/23
directed to open savings bank account(s) near
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 2/24
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:24:59 +0530
his place of residence and produce PAN Card
and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank
not issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the N.A.
passbook of their savings bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H.No.
Claimant(s). L-22/40, Jai
Prakash
Nagar,
Gali No. 9,
Gondha,
Delhi-
110053
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank N.A.
account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the N.A.
time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT
FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
1. This DAR was filed on 10/01/2023 by the
Investigating Officer in the presence of the parties. The DAR is
related to a motor vehicular accident dated 15/09/2020 in which
one Sh. Aalaok Mishra S/o Sh. Dhnesh Mishra (hereinafter
referred to as “petitioner”) sustained grievous injuries. As per
petitioner, on 15/09/2022 at about 08.30 A.M, he was coming
from Darya Ganj, Delhi after taking breakfast towards his shop
on his bicycle and when he was crossing Shantivan Red
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. PageDigitally
No.signed
3/24
PANKAJ SHARMA
by PANKAJ
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:25:03 +0530
Light,Delhi, the R-1 whiled plying his motorcycle bearing
registration number DL-14SN-7852 (hereinafter referred to as
“offending vehicle”) in a very most rash, negligent, reckless and
zig-zag manner at a very high speed without any regard from the
traffic rules and hit the cycle of the petitioner. It is further stated
that due to the heavy impact the cycle of the petitioner was
damaged and he fell down on the road and received grievous
injuries. It is further stated that the police was called and the
police came at the spot and took him to LNJP Hospital New
Delhi for his treatment. It is further stated that he has suffered
21% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. It is
further stated that the said accident took place due to the sole
negligence and carelessness of the R-1. It is further stated that he
has spent Rs.50,000/- on his medical treatment, Rs. 40,000/- on
conveyance, Rs. 40,000/- on special diet and Rs.50,000/- on
attendant. He seeks compensation to the tune of Rs.30 Lakhs on
account of the injuries sustained by him the vehicular accident.
It is further stated that at the time of accident he was 48 years of
age and was self employed and was earning Rs.25,000/- per
month. An FIR no. 831/22 U/s 279/338 IPC PS Kotwali was
registered by the police with respect to above accident. R-1 is
stated to be the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is stated to be
the owner of the offending vehicle. R-3 is stated to be the insurer
of the offending vehicle. DAR was treated as a claim petition.
R-3/insurance company was directed to file a legal
offer/reasoned decision in response to the said DAR. R-1 and R-2
were also directed to file their Written Statements.
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 4/24
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:25:07 +0530
2. No written statement was filed by R-1.
3. R-2/ Insurance Company filed a legal offer,
however, same was not accepted by the petitioner.
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 07/10/2024 the following issues
were framed by this Tribunal :-
1.Whether the petitioner Alok Mishra
suffered injuries in an accident that
took place on 15.09.2022 at about 08.35
AM involving vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-14SN-7852 driven
by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and
negligently, owned by the respondent
no. 2 and insured with the respondent
no. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
5. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in support
of his claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein
he described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts
mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He deposed that he sustained
grievous injuries at the relevant time. He further deposed that at
the relevant time, he was 48 years of age and was self employed
and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. and due to injuries he
has not been able to do his studies till date due to the said
accident and he has sustained permanent disability to the extent
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 5/24
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA 13:25:11 +0530
Date: 2025.01.21
of 21% with respect to his right lower limb. Petitioner has relied
upon the following documents viz:-
“Ex. PW1/1 (Colly) is DAR;
Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) is treatment papers of
PW-1;
Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) is copy of Aadhar Card of
PW-1;
Ex.PW1/4 is copy of discharge summary of
PW-1;
Ex. PW1/5 is disability certificate of PW-1;
Ex. PW1/6 (Colly) is medical bills.”
5.1 PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/
Insurance Company. In his cross-examination he deposed that he
has not placed any documentary proof which shows that he was
self employed and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. He
denied the suggestion that he was neither working nor earning
Rs.25,000/- per month. He further denied the suggestion that he
has not suffered any physical disability and there is no question
any functional disability. He further denied the suggestion that
accident took place due to his own negligence.
5.2 PE was then closed.
6. Respondent did not lead any evidence in their
defence.
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 6/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.01.21
13:25:15 +0530
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for
parties.
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise
findings is as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
“Whether the petitioner Alok Mishra
suffered injuries in an accident that
took place on 15.09.2022 at about 08.35
AM involving vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-14SN-7852 driven
by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and
negligently, owned by the respondent
no. 2 and insured with the respondent
no. 3? OPP.”
9. It is well settled that the procedure followed for
proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that
followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are
required to be established by preponderance of probabilities
only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable
doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of
proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a
criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles
Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case.
Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla
Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in
the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir
Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 7/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.01.21
13:25:20 +0530
2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. As already discussed above, the petitioner examined
himself as PW-1 in order to prove the factual averments
regarding the occurrence of accident. PW-1 has clearly and
categorically stated that at the relevant date, time and place, he
was coming from Darya Ganj, Delhi after taking breakfast
towards his shop on his bicycle and when he was crossing
Shantivan Red Light,Delhi, the R-1 whiled plying his
motorcycle bearing registration number DL-14SN-7852
(hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) in a very most
rash, negligent, reckless and zig-zag manner at a very high
speed without any regard from the traffic rules and hit the cycle
of the petitioner. It is further stated that due to the heavy impact
the cycle of the petitioner was damaged and he fell down on the
road and received grievous injuries. It is further stated that the
police was called and the police came at the spot and took him
to LNJP Hospital New Delhi for his treatment. It is further
stated that he has suffered 21% permanent disability in relation
to his right lower limb. It is further stated that the said accident
took place due to the sole negligence and carelessness of the
R-1. It is further stated that he has spent Rs.50,000/- on his
medical treatment, Rs. 40,000/- on conveyance, Rs. 40,000/- on
special diet and Rs.50,000/- on attendant. He seeks
compensation to the tune of Rs.30 Lakhs on account of the
injuries sustained by him the vehicular accident. It is further
stated that at the time of accident he was 48 years of age and
was self employed and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. He
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 8/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.01.21
13:25:25 +0530
further deposed that he suffered 21% permanent physical
disability with respect to his right lower limb and he has became
unemployable permanently. Petitioner claims compensation on
account of special pecuniary damage relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicine, transportation, diet, loss of earning
during the period, he was injured, loss of earning during the
period of treatment, loss of future earning on account of
permanent disability, future medical expenses, non-pecuniary
damages, damages for pain suffering and trauma, loss of
amenities and loss of expectation of life. PW-1 was subjected to
a brief cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance
Company. However, he remained consistent and seems to have
withstood the test of cross-examination. He has declined all the
suggestions of R-3/ Insurance Company imputing the
occurrence of accident to his own negligence. There is nothing
on record which betrays any falsity or untruth in the oral
testimony of PW-1. As such, it could be safely held that the oral
testimony of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy.
11. The very fact that R-1 has already been chargesheeted
for the offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC in the
above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to
support the above oral testimony of PW1 and the case of
petitioner on this issue. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet, Site
plan, Mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle, medical
papers, Seizure Memos and Arrest Memo of R-1 also
corroborate the testimony of PW1.
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 9/24
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:25:31 +0530
12. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who
could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the
depositions being made by PW1 regarding the above accident
and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an
adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn
against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at
the relevant time, R-1 was driving the offending vehicle a in
rash and negligent manner in a high speed at the relevant time.
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 R-1 in
driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the
above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty
of gross negligence and default in driving the offending vehicle
at the relevant time.
14. In view of the disability certificate, medical
treatment documents placed on record by the petitioner, no
dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him
in the above accident.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds
that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries on his person on
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 10/24
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:25:36 +0530
account of negligence and default of R-1 while driving the
offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands
decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount
and from whom?
16. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and
in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to
be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident,
but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the
same are required to be decided.
17. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of
the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this
tribunal is required to be ‘just’. In the injury cases a claimant is
entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. Pecuniary as
well as non-pecuniary damages. The “pecuniary damages” or
special damages are those damages which are awarded and
designed to make good the losses which are capable of being
calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these
damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he
had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries
suffered by him in the accident. The “non-pecuniary” or general
damages are those damages which are incapable of being
assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special
damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant
towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 11/24
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:25:40 +0530
attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non-
pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the
mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities
of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above
categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not
exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to
state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the
injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he
was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to
reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same
place or position where he could have been if the alleged
accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be
assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object
of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him
rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the ‘just’
compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated
objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating
the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under
the different heads of compensation. Further, in case of
permanent disability, the assessment of compensation under the
head of loss of future earning, would depend upon the effect and
impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity.
Reference in this regard can be made on some of important
judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D.
Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755,
Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company
Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar &
Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 12/24
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:25:44 +0530
18. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount
of compensation which can be considered to be ‘just’ in the
opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
19. The petitioner has placed on judicial file the treatment
records and original medical bills vide Ex. PW1/2(colly),
Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/6 (colly). As per the said documents,
petitioner has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.27,848/-. In the
absence of any contest to the said documents (placed on record
by the petitioner), the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of
Rs.27,848/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
20. As per medical documents, the petitioner has
suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 21% permanent
disability in relation to his right lower limbs. As per disability
certificate no.2001 dated 18.07.2024 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali
Govt. Hospital, Delhi, petitioner is a case of ”FUC Of # Proximal
Tibia ( Rt)” and was found to have sustained 21% permanent
physical impairment in relation to right lower limb. The
aforementioned certificate was issued in terms of the directions
of this Tribunal vide order dated 13/05/2024. Accordingly, the
aforementioned disability certificate could be read in evidence in
terms of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs
Union of India in Writ Petition (s) (Civil ) No (s). 534/2020 date
of order 16/11/2021. It is not possible to quantify the
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 13/24
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:25:50 +0530
compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and
sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above
injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to
compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner.
Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries
suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him
etc., an amount of Rs.50,000/- is being awarded to him towards
pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and
immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 50,000/-
under this head.
(iii) Loss of income
21. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims
that he he was 48 years of age and was self employed and was
earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The medical records placed on
record by petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained a
grievous injuries which resulted into 21% permanent physical
disability with to right lower limb. The above documents are
sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to the effect that
he was unable to resume his vocation since the date of accident.
In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it
could be safely assumed that the petitioner has become unfit for
work for rest of his life after the accident and he could not have
worked for about 06 months due to the injuries. In the absence of
any material as to the monthly earnings of the petitioner, it
would be appropriate to assume the monthly earnings of the
petitioner as per the Minimum Wages payable to an Un-Skilled
Person in Delhi as on the date of accident. Accordingly, the
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 14/24
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:25:55 +0530
Minimum Wages admissible to Unskilled Person as on
15/09/2022 in Delhi the earnings was Rs.16,506/-. As such, the
petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.99,036/- (Rs.16,506/- X
3). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
22. Petitioner claimed in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that
he has become permanently disabled after the accident and could
not perform his work by resuming his duties. Admittedly,
petitioner has suffered 21% permanent physical impairment with
respect to right lower limb. Since the petitioner was self
employed and in such circumstances, permanent disability
pertaining to his right lower limb would decrease his functional
capacity to a greater extent thereby harming his employment
prospects and future. Accordingly, the functional disability of
petitioner is taken as 21%. This Tribunal has already assumed
the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs.16,506/- at the
relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of
accident is concerned, we may look into the photocopy of
petitioner’s Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW1/3, as per the said
document, the date of year of petitioner was 1974. The date of
accident is 15/09/2022. Going by the same, the age of petitioner
as on the date of accident was around 48 years. Therefore, in
view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,
(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent
judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 15/24
PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21 13:25:59
+0530
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil)
No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of ’13’ is held applicable for
calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of
his above disability. The petitioner is also entitled to 25% future
prospects as per the observations made by a Three Judge Bench
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express
Transport Corporation Ltd., MANU/SC/0545/2020 [please see
para 7 (b)]. Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to
his above injury and permanent disability comes to Rs.6,75,921/-
(rounded off) (Rs.16,506/- X 125/100 X 21/100 X 12 X 13 ) and
the same is awarded to him as compensation under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
23. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the
extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a
sum of Rs. 35,000/- each under these heads.
(vi) Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement
24. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the
extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a
sum of Rs. 35,000/- each under these heads.
Issue No.3/Relief
25. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs.10,27,805/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and
Five Only) (Rs.27,848/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.99,036/- +
Rs.6,75,921/- + Rs.35,000/- + Rs. 35,000/- + Rs.35,000/- + Rs.
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 16/24
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:26:03 +0530
35000/- + Rs.35,000/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum
from the date of restoration of the DAR i.e. 10/01/2023.Since no
interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction
is applicable.
RELEASE
26. Petitioner did not bother to appear before this
Tribunal for recording his statement regarding financial needs
and requirements.
26.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner is awarded a
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) and the said
amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch
Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 50
monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts
for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per the scheme
formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for
Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his
savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when he furnishes
the details of his bank account which is near the place of his
residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari
Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this
Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.1,92,254/- (Rupees One
Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Four
Only) is also directed to be released into his above said account,
which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner.
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 17/24
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:26:06 +0530
27. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be
added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of
the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the
petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and
not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be
retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe
custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR
amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished
by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the
FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the
savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their
residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission
of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
28. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and
principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the offending
vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are
jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of
compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle
was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3/
Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-2 in respect of
above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above
award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by
way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal
maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder’s
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 18/24
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:26:09 +0530
name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No.
40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the
petitioners and this Tribunal in terms of the format for
remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager
Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and
16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 8% per
annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing
which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per
annum for the period of delay.
29. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the
parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of
the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi
Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles
(fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40
of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents
(under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the
record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of
Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A).
30. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy
of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India &
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 19/24
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:26:14 +0530
Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated
copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts
for information.
31. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the
directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC
APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021
regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put
Digitally signed
up the same on 21.02.2025. by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.01.21
13:26:17 +0530Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
on this 21.01.2025 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHIFORM – XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A)SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 15/09/2022
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Aalok Mishra
3. Age of the injured : 48 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Self Employed
5. Income of the injured : Rs.16,506/- as per
minimum wages of
an Unskilled PersonMACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 20/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.01.21
13:26:21 +0530
prevailing in Delhi
at the relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken
by injured : Differnt Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : Different Periods
9. Whether any permanent
disability ? If yes, give details : YES
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(I) Expenditure on treatment Rs.27,848/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.35,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 35,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 35,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 21/24 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21 13:26:24 +0530 (vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL (vii) Loss of Income Rs.99,036/- (viii) Any other loss which may NIL require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life 12. Non-Pecuniary Loss: (i) Compensation for mental NIL and physical shock (ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- (iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.35,000/- (iv) Disfiguration Rs.35,000/- (v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 22/24 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21 13:26:28 +0530 (vi) Loss of earning, N.A. inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability 21% w.r.t. right lower limb
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A
expectation of life span on
account of disability21%
(iii) Percentage of loss of
earning capacity in relation
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – Rs.6,75,921/-
(Income x % Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.10,27,805/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 8% per annum
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 23/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.01.21
13:26:33 +0530
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.1,64,449/-(rounded off)
date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.11,92,254/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs.1,92,254/-
19. Award amount kept in As per award
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of 21.02.2025
the award.
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 21.01.2025.
2. A separate file is ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with
directions to put up the same on 21.02.2025.
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:26:38 +0530
(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI/21/01/2025
MACT No. 31/23 Aalaok Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page No. 24/24
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
13:26:41 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link