Delhi District Court
Bittu vs Surender on 21 January, 2025
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 273/17
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-003673-2017
Sh. Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar,
S/o Sh. Swaraj Kumar,
R/o H. No. 733,
Gali No. 7A,
Swatantar Nagar,
Narela, Delhi.
(Injured) ..........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Surender Kumar,
S/o Sh. Maye Ram,
R/o. H.No. 812,
Gali No. 2,
Balmiki Mohalla,
Bankner, Narela,
Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Ram Kishan,
(Registered owner through his LRs:-)
1. Smt. Murti Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan,
2. Ms. Monika,
D/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan,
3. Sh. Subhash,
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan,
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 1 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
4. Ms. Preeti @ Arti,
D/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan,
5. Sh. Praveen,
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan,
All R/o H.No. 812, Gali No. 2,
Balmiki Mohalla,
Bankner, Narela,
Delhi.
............Respondents
Date of Institution : 22.03.2017
Date of Arguments : 14.01.2025
Date of Award : 21.01.2025
APPEARANCES:-
Ms. Azma Praveen, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
None for driver and registered owner.
Offending vehicle is uninsured.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD
1. By way of present judgment/award, I shall dispose of the DAR
filed by the investigating agency which has been converted into a claim
petition under section 166(4) of M. V. Act 1988 for grant of compensation to
the petitioner.
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 2 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
2. The concise material facts relevant to decide the present claim
petition as averred are that on 06.01.2017 at about 5:00 am, the
petitioner/injured was sitting in front of the Fitness Zone Gym, Bankner
Village, Delhi and suddenly, one Marti Eeco Car bearing registration no.
DL8CU-3307 which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in a
rash and negligent manner, came and hit him with a great force, as a result of
which, he fell down on the road and sustained ‘grievous injury’. Petitioner
was taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi where he was medically
examined and further referred to St. Stephen’s Hospital. A case U/s 279/338
IPC, 3/181 & 146/196 M.V. Act was registered at PS. Narela vide FIR No.
30/17 with regard to the accident in question. The offending vehicle was
found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and the same was uninsured as on the
date of alleged accident.
3. In their joint written statement, the respondent no. 1 & 2 i.e.
driver and registered owner have claimed that the alleged accident was not
caused by the respondent no. 1 and the same had been caused by some other
vehicle. It has been further claimed that on the date and time of accident, the
respondent no. 1 alongwith his brother-in-law was going on alleged offending
vehicle and after seeing the injured, they went to help him and took him to a
nearby hospital and after that they left the hospital. It has been claimed that
after few days, some police officials visited their house and told them that
their vehicle was involved in the accident and FIR had been lodged in this
regard. It has been claimed that alleged offending vehicle has been falsely
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 3 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
implicated in the present case by the petitioner in order to get the false
compensation. Thus, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the
petitioner. On the basis of these averments, they have prayed for dismissal of
DAR petition.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed vide order dated 03.10.2017:-
1. Whether the injured Bittu suffered injuries in
road traffic accident on 06.01.2017 at about 5:30 am at
Upper side of Lampur Underpass, in front of Fitness
Zone Gym, Narela, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS.
Narela, due to rashness and negligence on the part of
Surender who was driving Eeco Car bearing registration
no. DL8CU-3307 which was owned by Sh. Ram
Kishan? OPP
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3. Relief.
5. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner has examined himself as
PW1 and one more witness Dr. Ritesh Kumar, Medical Officer, Department
of Orthopedics, Hindu Rao Hospital as PW2 and closed evidence vide order
dated 15.03.2023.
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 4 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
6. In defence, no evidence has been adduced by any of the
respondents and their opportunity to lead respondent’s evidence was closed
vide order dated 24.10.2019.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record including the pleadings and documents. The respondents have failed to
address arguments despite grant of sufficient time and opportunities. I have
given thoughtful consideration to the same. The issue wise determination is
as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1
8. The onus to prove, the aforesaid issue was placed on the
petitioner. To prove the said issue, petitioner/injured examined himself as
PW1 by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A). In his evidence by way of affidavit
(Ex. PW1/A), injured/petitioner has deposed on the lines of averments made
in the DAR petition. He has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex PW1/1(OSR)
2. Copy of his PAN Card Ex PW1/2(OSR)
3. Copy of his Voter I Card Ex. PW1/3(OSR)
4. Copy of his I-Card Ex. PW1/4(OSR)
5. DAR Ex. PW1/5(colly)
6. His medical treatment record Ex. PW1/6(colly)
7. His medical bills Ex. PW1/7(Colly)
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 5 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
9. PW1 (injured himself) in his testimony by way of affidavit
(Ex. PW1/A) has deposed that 06.01.2017 at about 5:00 am, he was sitting in
front of the Fitness Zone Gym, Bankner Village, Delhi and suddenly, one
Marti Eeco Car bearing registration no. DL8CU-3307 which was being
driven by its driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner,
came and hit him with a great force, as a result of which, he fell down on the
road and sustained ‘grievous injury’. He further deposed that after the
accident, he was immediately taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi where
he was medically examined and further referred to St. Stephen’s Hospital. A
case U/s 279/338 IPC, 3/181 & 146/196 M.V. Act was registered at
PS. Narela vide FIR No. 30/17 with regard to the accident in question.
10. The aforesaid witness (PW1) was duly cross examined by the
Ld. Counsels for the respondents on the point of issue under consideration.
During his cross examination on behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2, he deposed
that he was going to Fitness Zone Gym at Village Bankner for the last 4-5
months prior to the date of accident. He further deposed that said gym used to
open at about 5:00/5:30 am in the morning. He further deposed that on the
day of accident, he had reached at gym at about 5:15 am and gym was not
opened on that day at that time and due to said reason, he was sitting outside
the main entrance of gym. He deposed that there was no staircase situated
outside the main entrance of gym at that time. He denied the suggestion that
there was staircase present just outside the main entrance of said gym at that
time. He deposed that the accident had taken place at about 5:00/5:15 am. He
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 6 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
further deposed that the accident was caused by Maruti Eeco Vehicle bearing
no. DL8CU-3307. He denied the suggestion that no such accident was caused
by said vehicle or that accident had been caused by some other vehicle. He
denied the suggestion that the respondent no. 1 was simply passing through
the place of accident or that he had stopped his aforesaid Maruti Eeco vehicle
at the place of accident on seeing him in accidental condition or that he had
simply removed him to the hospital on humanitarian ground. He volunteered
that he had fled away from the spot while leaving the offending vehicle at the
place of accident. He deposed that so far as he recollect, there was no other
public person present at the time of accident. He further volunteered that
public persons had started gathering at the spot after the accident had
occurred and someone amongst the public persons had made PCR call at 100
number.
11. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the
criminal case record [(which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/5 (colly.)] in order to
bring home his point that the accident in question has taken place due to rash
and negligent driving of the alleged offending vehicle by respondent no.1. He
further argued that respondent no. 1 Sh. Surender S/o Sh. Mai Ram was also
chargesheeted by the police for offences u/s. 279/338 IPC, 3/181, 5/181 &
146/196 M.V. Act which clearly establishes that the accident in question has
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the alleged offending vehicle
by respondent no. 1.
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 7 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
12. Per contra, the claim has been contested on behalf of both the
respondents. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 2 argued that alleged
accident was caused by the respondent no. 1 from the alleged offending
vehicle and the same has been falsely implicated in the instant case at the
instance of the petitioner.
13. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsel for
petitioner, evidence, material on record and duly verified documents of the
DAR have been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1
namely Surender has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable U/s
279/338 IPC, 3/181, 5/181 & 146/196 M.V. Act by the investigating agency
after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it
that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving
of offending vehicle
14. The onus to prove the rash and negligent driving is on the
petitioner but this fact is not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as in a
criminal trial or as per strict rules of evidence in a civil litigation. Rather, it
has to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim petition based upon
negligence. The observation of the Hon’ble High Court made in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sakshi Bhutani & Ors, MAC APP. 550/2011 decided
on 02.07.2012 is relevant that it has to be borne in mind that the motor
Vehicles Act does not envisage holding a trial for a petition preferred under
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 8 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
Section 166 of Act. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon
the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted
by the Claims Tribunal. The legal position is derived from the Authority in
State of Mysore v. S. S. Makapur, 1993(2) SCR 943, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India wherein it has been laid down that the Tribunals exercising
quasi-judicial functions are not courts and are not bound by strict rules of
evidence.
15. The rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle may be
proved, either by direct evidence or by circumstances including principle by
applying the res-ipsa loquitur. Further, it has not been disputed by any of the
parties that the owner of the offending vehicle (Tempo) has disclosed
pursuant to the notice U/s 133 of M. V. Act that at the time of alleged
accident, the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle was driver of
the said vehicle. It is also an undisputed fact that FIR No. 30/17 u/s 279/338
IPC, 3/181, 5/181 & 146/196 M.V. Act was registered at PS. Narela with
regard to accident in question.
16. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of offending
vehicle, was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how
and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has
preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 9 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him.
There is nothing on record to show that the injured/petitioner has any enmity
with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in this
case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. V.
Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High
Court on 11.11.2008.
17. Apart from above, copy of MLC (which is part of DAR) of
injured prepared at SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi shows that he was taken to
said hospital with alleged history of RTA on 06.01.2017 at 5:48 AM. On his
local examination, he was found to have sustained multiple injuries as
mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are
sustained in a motor vehicular accident. Although, the opinion was reserved
by the doctors of the said hospital. The injured was thereafter taken to
St. Stephen’s Hospital where the doctors of the said hospital opined that
injuries sustained by the injured is of ‘grievous’. Again, there is no challenge
to these documents from the side of respondents.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has
come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove his case
on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, that he sustained grievous
injuries in road accident which took place on 06.01.2017 at about 5:30 am at
Upper side of Lampur Underpass, in front of Fitness Zone Gym, Narela,
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 10 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioner and
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
19. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the
Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable.
20. It has been duly proved that the injured/petitioner Sh. Pawan
Dubey sustained grievous injury in the road traffic accident occurred on
06.01.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1/driver.
Consequent upon the injuries and permanent disability, the injured/petitioner
suffered both physical and internal injuries, pain & suffering, incurred
medical expenses, remained incapacitated to resume work immediately and
therefore, suffered both personally and monetarily. Accordingly, petitioner is
entitled for just and fair compensation in the present case.
21. The guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” in injury cases has been laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High
Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay
Kumar Mittal & Ors that: –
” The possession of one’s own body is the first and most
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 11 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation
for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in
mind. Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account
of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to
equate money with human suffering, agony and personal
deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest
and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can
compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity
and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of
awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in
personal injury cases must be substantial and not token
damages”.
22. It has been further held by the Hon’ble High Court that:
“the general principle which should govern the assessment
of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should
award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the
same position as he would have been in the same position
as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries”.
23. The Hon’ble Apex Court pleased to consider the legal position
for grant of reasonable and fair compensation and has laid down the binding
guidelines that ” the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a
windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance”. Reliance is
placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. The golden principles for assessment of adequate compensation to
victims of road accident have been appreciated by the full bench of Hon’ble
Apex Court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., wherein it has been held:-
“…..The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic
principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It
is a well expected norm that money can not substitute a life lost but an
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 12 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of
approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a
windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum…..”
24. Accordingly, the entitlement of injured/victim to just
compensation is being assessed in the background of well settled parameters
and guidelines as hereinbelow.
LOSS OF INCOME/EARNING CAPACITY
25. It is duly proved on record and appreciated by way of both
documentary as well as oral evidence including that of a Medical Expert as
PW2 that the petitioner has been assessed to have sustained 60% permanent
disability in relation to his left lower limb with below knee amputation left.
His Disability Certificate dated 21.03.2018 issued by competent Medical
Board of SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi is duly proved as Ex. PW2/1.
26. As per the testimony of PW2 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta, the duly
constituted Medical Board assessed the disability of the patient and found the
disability sustained by the petitioner to be permanent in nature which is not
likely to improve. He further deposed that the case of injured was that of
below knee amputation left side. He further deposed that due to the aforesaid
disability suffered by the injured, he would not be able to stand, walk or run
without support. The said witness was not cross-examined by respondents
no. 1 & 2. There is nothing on record to challenge the disability assessment
of the claimant who has suffered permanent disability in respect of his left
lower limb with below knee amputation left.
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 13 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
27. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has been assessed
to have sustained 60% permanent disability, in relation to his left lower limb
with below knee amputation left leg. As per medical record and duly proved
evidence, the petitioner has not only suffered functional disability but also
suffered physical disability in causing him to have permanently lost his
ability to walk normally due to amputation below knee left leg, thereby
permanently leading to his limping walk. Therefore, while calculating the
affect of permanent disability on the loss of earning capacity of the injured,
due regard is necessary about the nature of work that was or is likely to
perform by the claimant/injured. At the time of road accident, petitioner was
a student of Maharaja Agarsen Nursing Paramedical College, Bawana Road,
Swatantar Nagar, Narela, Delhi. With the assessment of permanent disability
of 60% in relation to left lower limb of the injured, he would not be able to
attend his college or office by commuting via two wheeler or four wheeler. It
may also be relevant to consider that nature of work of Nurse may require
long hours standing and frequent visits to patient and as such capacity to have
unlimited physical movement for having the best earning opportunities have
become irreversibly disadvantageous due to permanent disability suffered by
the petitioner. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has been
assessed to have sustained 60% permanent disability, in relation to his left
lower limb, having a case of below knee amputation left. Therefore, this
Court is to take a pragmatic view to ascertain functional disability of the
injured with regard to whole body. Keeping in view the overall facts and
circumstances of the case including the nature of injuries and permanent
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 14 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
disability suffered by the petitioner in respect of left lower limb with below
knee amputation left, I am of the considered opinion that due to disability
suffered (permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb and
amputation of left lower limb(below knee) in the present accident, the
petitioner will suffer 100% loss of earning capacity. Hence, the functional
disability of the petitioner is considered as 60% towards loss of earning
capacity. (Reliance is placed on recent judgment passed in case titled ” Raj
Kumar Vs. Nitin Kumar Goyal & Ors.”, MAC. APP. 74/2022, date of
decision 20.11.2024, by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi).
28. Now, to examine the relevant considerations in case of disability
suffered by a child who was minor about 17 years and computation of loss of
earning capacity of minor injured, it is relevant to examine the guiding
principles discernible from various authorities passed by Hon’ble Apex Court
and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
29. The binding legal precedent rendered in case titled Raj Kumar vs
Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010, by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has
stood the test of time and continues to throw light on the relevant aspects to
be considered for awarding compensation in personal injuries cases, as
under:-
“6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury
cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 15 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
medicines, transportation,nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expense.
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 3 (2011) 1 SCC 343 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), (iv) 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.”
30. As has been considered, the permanent disability of claimant in
relation to whole body for the purpose of computation of loss of earning
capacity shall be taken as 60%. Since, the petitioner was pursuing General
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 16 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) at the time of accident and is not yet a
graduate till the decision of this claim petition, the testimony of the
claimant/injured is relevant to be examined who has tendered his Aadhaar
Card as Ex. PW1/1 to prove his identity and date of birth as 13.09.1999. The
factum of age of claimant/injured gets fortified further by his educational
qualification documents Ex. PW1/4. Accordingly, date of birth of the
claimant is duly proved as 13.09.1999. Since, the petitioner was pursuing
GNB, First Year during the Academic Session 2016-17, established by way of
educational documents hereinabove, it is established that petitioner was
matriculate at the time of accident. Therefore, petitioner was almost 18 years
old as on the date of accident. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had
started earning on the date of accident. However, the petitioner was merely
18 years old and had already started professional course after his school to
demonstrate that the petitioner was diligently pursuing his career prospects
and has been a sincere and hardworking person. However, due to the injuries
suffered by him in the accident in question, he could not complete the said
course. Unfortunately, the petitioner has suffered injuries in the road accident
in question which has caused him permanent disability in left lower limb with
amputation below knee. As per the disability certificate(Ex. PW2/1), it has
been assessed that petitioner has suffered 60% permanent disability, in
relation to his left lower limb. The petitioner was pursuing professional
course at the time of accident and was not yet a graduate, the guiding
parameters available for assessment of earning capacity is as per minimum
wages scheduled for a matriculate person. The minimum wages of a
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 17 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
matriculate person were revised to Rs. 16,182/- w.e.f. 03.03.2017. The
accident in question had occurred on 06.01.2017 i.e. just 2 months before the
date from which minimum wages were revised by the government. In these
facts and circumstances, I am inclined to take the minimum wages at the rate
of Rs. 16,182/- in order to calculate loss of income under this head.
31. The multiplier applicable with reference to the age of petitioner
is 18 as per “Sarla Verma Vs. DTC”, 2009 ACJ 1298 SC” as the petitioner
was more than 17 years but less than 18 years at the time of accident.
32. For the purpose of future prospects, Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. has been pleased to discuss the
applicable aspects of law pertaining to “additions” in the minimum wages on
account of “inflation” for computation of compensation. It has been held by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the afore-cited case that aspect of future prospects
shall be a relevant consideration in computation of just and proper
compensation even in cases where the deceased was self- employed . The
guiding parameters laid down in Pranay Sethi‘s case (supra) have been
reiterated by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in appeals bearing MAC APP No.
798/2011 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pooja &
Ors., decided on 02.11.17 and MAC. APP No. 602/2013 titled as National
Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Satender, decided on 14.07.2023 allowing the addition
of 40% on account of future prospects in such cases where the injured was
below the age of 40 years, if self-employed category.
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 18 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
33. The court is guided by latest pronouncement of Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi passed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender (supra),
pertaining to the case of victim having permanent disability, wherein Hon’ble
Court pleased to consider the following legal position:-
“…..It is well settled law that a person who has suffered
permanent disability in an accident caused by a motor
vehicle, is also entitled to compensation under the head of
loss of future prospects and compensation under the said
head not only has to be granted in the cases of fatal accidents
leading to death. The whole purpose of awarding
compensation under the Act is to restore a victim of accident
to a financial position which he had prior to occurrence of
accident.”
34. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while deciding the aforesaid
case has also followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pappu Deo Yadav Vs Naresh Kumar & Ors., reported as 2020 SCC Online SC 752.
The relevant para of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:
“7. Two questions arise for consideration: one,
whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred
as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can
seek, apart from compensation for future loss of
income, amounts for future 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
Anant 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
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 19 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025for 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 Sethi
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.
8. This court has emphasized time and again 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….”
35. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to further consider
the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd.Sabeer @Shabir Hussain Vs.
Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, reported as 2022 SCC
Online SC 1701. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as follows:
“18. It is a well settled position of law that in cases
of permanent disablement caused by a motor
accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future
loss of income, but also future prospects. It has been
reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that
“just compensation” must be interpreted in such a
manner as to place the claimant in the same position
as he was before the accident took place.”
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 20 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
36. Thus, applying the multiplier of 18 and addition of 40% towards
future prospects in the light of aforesaid pronouncements, the loss of earning
on account of disability comes to Rs. 29,36,062.08p (Rs.16,182/- X 12 X
60% X 18 X 140/100). Hence, a sum of Rs. 29,36,000/- (rounded off) is
awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
37. The petitioner has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit
(Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, he was taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela,
Delhi and further referred to St. Stephen Hospital. He further deposed that he
has already spent more than Rs. 6,00,000/- on his medical treatment. He has
relied upon medical bills (Ex. PW1/7 colly) to the tune of Rs. 2,58,569.57p.
38. The aforesaid witness (PW-1) was also duly cross examined by
the Ld. Counsels for the respondents no. 1 & 2 on the point of quantum of
compensation. During his cross-examination on behalf of said respondents,
he admitted that he had not filed medical bills to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- on
record. He denied the suggestion that his medical bills were forged and
fabricated in order to get false compensation from the respondents.
39. The injured/petitioner has relied upon the medical bills to the
tune of Rs. 2,46,591/- only, which are Ex. PW1/7(colly). The medical bills
tendered on record are duly proved and remained unchallanged and
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 21 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
unrebutted. There is nothing on record to doubt the authenticity and
genuineness of the said bills. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to be
compensated for the medical expenses incurred by him during the treatment.
Thus, a sum of Rs. 2,47,000/-(rounded off) is awarded to the petitioner under
this head.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
40. It is further claimed that petitioner has spent considerable
amount on his special diet, conveyance and attendant. It is relevant to note
here that the petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the
amount, if any spent on special diet, conveyance and attendant as aforesaid
by him. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that petitioner has
sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is
also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 60% in
relation to his left lower limb with below knee amputation left leg. It is also
relevant to mention here that as per the disability certificate (Ex.PW2/1), the
case of petitioner was below knee amputation left leg. Thus, he would have
taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also
incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting
to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow
up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely
helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily
activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 22 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
treatment. There is no definite quantum of the expenses that has been proved
by the claimant through any bills, transport expenses or receipts from any
attendant. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of
Rs. 25,000/- each for special diet and conveyance charges and a sum of
Rs. 30,000/- for attendant charges to the petitioner.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
41. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as ” Vinod
Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors.” passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP
518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under:-
” It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms
of money which is suffered by a victim on account of
serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle
accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid
for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award
compensation which may have some objective relation
with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For
this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts
normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the
body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any,
underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital
and the duration of treatment”.
42. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has
argued that petitioner has suffered 60% permanent disability in relation to his
left lower limb and there was below knee amputation of left leg due to the
accident in question. Thus, he would have undergone great physical
sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 23 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the
nature of injuries suffered by him including permanent disability suffered by
him, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings to
the petitioner.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
43. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on
record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the
accident. His treatment record would also show that he had suffered grievous
injuries and 60% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb and
there was below knee amputation of left leg due to the accident in question.
Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the
accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been
definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent
disability suffered by him, his continued treatment for considerable period, I
award a notional sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of general amenities and
enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECT
44. Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that the chances of marriage
prospect of petitioner have decreased considerably due to his permanent
physical impairment. He further argued that case of petitioner was below
knee amputation left leg. He therefore urged that reasonable amount of
compensation should be awarded to him under this head.
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 24 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
45. As per medical record and duly proved evidence, the petitioner
is not only suffered functional disability but also suffered physical disability
in causing him to have permanently lost his ability to walk normally due to
amputation of his left lower limb, thereby permanently leading to his limping
walk. He was aged 17 years at the time of accident. Since, the petitioner has
not only suffered suffered functional disability but also suffered physical
disability in causing him to have permanently lost his ability to walk
normally due to amputation of left leg below knee, there can be a possibility
that the same would affect his marriage prospects. Thus, compensation
under the head of loss of marriage prospects also deserves to be awarded in
favour of petitioner after keeping the aforesaid fact in mind. Accordingly, I
hereby award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner under this head.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Loss of income/earning capacity Rs. 29,36,000/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs. 2,47,000/-
3. Special diet, Conveyance & Rs. 80,000/-
attendant charges
4. Pain & Suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 75,000/-
enjoyment of life
6. Loss of marriage prospect Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Rs. 35,38,000/-
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 25 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
46. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which
of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. The offending
vehicle was uninsured at the time of accident. Moreover, the respondent no. 1
was also not having valid and driving licence at the time of accident and thus,
he was also chargesheeted for offence u/s. 3/181, 5/181 & 146/196 M.V. Act
apart from other offences. Respondent no. 1 being principal tort-feasor and
respondent no. 2 being owner of the offending vehicle and therefore, Lrs of
deceased registered owner vicariously liable for the acts of principal tort-
feasor, are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation
amount to the petitioner.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
47. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2, I award
compensation of Rs. 35,38,000/- (including interim award amount, if any)
alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f date of filing the claim petition
i.e. 22.03.2017 (except for the period of delay w.e.f. 06.02.2021 to
05.04.2021 as petitioner has failed to got his statement recorded in terms of
clause 29 of MCTAP) till the date of its realization, in favour of petitioner
and against the respondents no.1 & 2. (Reliance placed on United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 21.04.2023).
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 26 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
APPORTIONMENT
48. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was
recorded on 05.04.2021. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case and keeping in view that considerable expenses has already been
incurred by the petitioner on his medical treatment and in view that petitioner
would require supplementary income, it is hereby ordered that out of the
awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 5,38,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Thirty
Eight Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through
his MACT Bank A/c No. 30320100006584 with Bank of Baroda, Bawana
Road, Narela, Delhi, having IFSC Code BARB0NARELA and remaining
amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of
Rs. 50,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so
forth, having cumulative interest.
49. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be
subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings
bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings
bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank
account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of
maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS)
in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their
residence.
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 27 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of
their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on
the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit
card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have
already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of
the award amount.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been
issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and
claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement
before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the
duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the
claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity
(Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of
Hon’ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs.
Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and
form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD)
Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to
disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit
(MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide
order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 28 of 29
MACP No. 273/17; FIR No. 30/17; PS. Narela DOD: 21.01.2025
50. The respondents i.e. driver and Lrs of deceased registered owner
are directed to deposit the award amount in the bank account of this Tribunal
with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order.
Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the
aforesaid amount immediately to petitioner in his aforesaid bank account
mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be
further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till
the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement so that the award amount
starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of this
award be given dasti to claimant. Copy of this award be sent to both the
respondents through SHO, PS. Narela for information and compliance. Copy
of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank
passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal
Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary
compliance. Form XVI & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed
herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and
DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA MANCHANDA
MANCHANDA Date:
Announced in the open 2025.01.21
15:26:43 +0545
Court on 21.01.2025
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Bittu @ Bitoo Kumar Vs. Surender & Ors. Judge MACT -02 (North) Page 29 of 29
[ad_1]
Source link