Delhi District Court
Parth Sareen vs Anoop Kumar on 17 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010066782024
MACT No. : 294/2024
FIR No. : 102/2024
PS : Ranjit Nagar
u/s : 279/337/338 IPC
Mr. Parth Sareen (Injured/Petitioner)
S/o Mr. Sanjay Sareen
Through his mother
Ms. Malini Sareen
R/o RZ-96, SF-BS
Pankha Raod, Mahindra Park,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Anoop Kumar (Driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Nanhuraj
R/o Pirkhauli Sauri
Sohawal, Faizabad,
U.P.-224126.
2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar (Owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o Mr. Ram Dv
R/o Y-250, Y Block,
Loha Mandi, Naraina Vihar
Delhi-110028.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Space No. 315,
Aggarwal City, Mall Road No. 44,
Pitam Pura, Delhi.
......Respondents
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 1 of 36
Date of filing of DAR : 01.05.2024
Judgment reserved on : 12.03.2025
Date of Award : 17.03.2025
AWAR D
The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
01.05.2024 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 30.01.2024 at about 03:45 AM at
Shadipur Flyover Towards Moti Nagar, Delhi. The petitioner, Mr. Parth
Sareen, had suffered grievous injuries. The said accident was allegedly
caused by the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1LD-8329 which was
being driven by respondent No.1, Mr. Anoop Kumar; owned by
respondent no. 2, Mr. Sanjay Kumar and insured with respondent no.3,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on
30.01.2024, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No. 9A, SI
Ashutosh Bansal along with Ct. Parveen went to the spot of the accident
where two accidental vehicles, one Maroon Colour Honda City Car
bearing registration no. DL1CAF 2717 and the other vehicle i.e.
Mahindra Bolero bearing bearing registration no. DL-1LD-8329 were
found stationed in accidental condition on the roadside and many big
iron garters were found in the vehicle Mahindra Bolero and the same
were found outside the vehicle and no alarming sign was found there.
They were informed that the injured had been taken to Acharya Bhikshu
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 2 of 36
Hospital. After leaving Ct. Parveen at the spot, SI Abhishek Kumar
Bansal went to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital where he collected the MLCs
of the injured persons i.e. MLC No. 376/24 of injured Mansi; MLC No.
377/24 of Harshul Arora; MLC No. 378/24 of injured Parth Sareen and
379/24 of Sameer. Injured Sameer was declared as brought dead by the
doctors. All the other injured persons namely Mansy Saha, Parth Sareen
and Harshul Arora were not fit for statement. SI Ashutosh got the dead
body of deceased Sameer preserved in mortuary of RML Hospital
through Ct. Gaurav. Crime Team was called at the spot of the accident
and SI Ashutosh seized the exhibits handed over by the crime team.
Despite best efforts, no eye witness could be found. Both the accidental
vehicles were brought to the police station with the help of a crane.
Later, he got to know that the injured persons are admitted in BLK
Hospital. He went to the said hospital where all the three injured persons
were found admitted, however, none of the them was in a position to
make the statement. On the basis of the spot of the accident and MLCs
of the injured persons, the offence under section 279/3387/304A IPC
was found to have been committed and accordingly, FIR No. 102/2024
was registered at P.S. Ranjit Nagar.
3. During the course of investigation, the IO prepared the site
plan and sent both the accidental vehicles in malkhana. Thereafter, the
case file was sent to MACT Cell, Central District for further
investigation. During the course of further investigation, the IO went to
RML Hospital, he got the postmortem of deceased Sameer conducted
and thereafter, handed over the dead body to his relatives for last rites.
He deposited the 44 garters which were lying in the offending vehicle
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 3 of 36
Mahindra Bolero at the government pit at Wazirabad, Delhi at the
instructions of the concerned SHO as there was lack of space at the
police station. The IO served the notice u/s 133 MV Act upon the owner
of the offending vehicle, pursuant to which, he produced the driver
Anoop Kumar at the police station on 05.02.2024. Since there was
sufficient material against the driver of the offending vehicle, the IO
arrested him. However, since the offence was bailable, he was released
on furnishing of bail bonds. On 09.02.2024, the information of death of
injured Harshul Arora, during his treatment, was received at the police
station. On 10.02.2024, he got the postmortem of deceased Harshul
Aroa conducted and handed over his dead body to his relatives for last
rites. Thereafter, on 04.03.2024, the eye witness namely Mr. Anuj
Kapoor, S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar had come to the police station and the IO
recorded his statement. He obtained the postmortem reports of deceased
Sameer and Harshul Arora and deposited the MLCs of Mansy Saha and
Parth Sareen for final opinion as per which, the injuries sustained by the
both the said injured persons were dangerous injury. Therefore, Section
337 IPC was replaced with Section 338 of IPC. Injured Parth Sareen
was still under treatment in unconscious statement and not fit for
statement and Mansy Saha had been discharged from the hospital but
she was not able to give her statement. The IO seized the documents of
the offending vehicle and got the same verified from the concerned
authorities. As per investigation of the IO, the accident occurred due to
sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle who
had loaded 20 ft long iron garters in his 8 ft. vehicle and was driving his
vehicle on the road in the month of January in very less visibility due to
heavy fog without any light or highlighter indicating the length of the
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 4 of 36
garters due to which, the Honda City car which was being driven behind
the said vehicle got hit with the garters and deceased Sameer Suri and
Harshul Arora expired and Mansy Saha and Parth Sareen suffered
dangerous grievous injuries and instead of helping the injured persons,
the driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot and
therefore, Sections 134 (1)a/187 M. V. Act were added in the FIR.
Further, Sections 39/192 of M. V. Act for registration certificate
violation, 184 for dangerous driving, 194 (1A) of M.V. Act for high and
long load were also added. After completion of investigation,
chargesheet for the offences u/s 279/338/304A IPC & 134
(1)a/187/184/194 (1A) M.V. Act was filed against the driver of the
offending vehicle, Mr. Anoop Kumar before the concerned Ld. JMFC
and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal on 01.05.2024.
4. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed their common written
statement and respondent no.3/insurance company filed its legal offer.
5. Since, legal offer was filed, the issues were framed only
viz-a-viz quantum of compensation vide order dated 29.07.2024 which
are as follows:
1. How much compensation are the petitioners entitled to? OPP
2. Relief.
6. The Petitioner had led evidence on the point of quantum.
Petitioner examined Mr. Raju Giri as PW-1; Mr. Ravi Gandhi as PW-2;
Mr. Lokendra Kumar as PW-3; Mr. Vivek Kaushal as PW-4 and Dr. Atul
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 5 of 36
Dua as PW-5. Inadvertently, Ms. Malini Sareeen was also examined as
PW-5. Thus, for the purposes of clarity, the evidence of Dr. Atul Dua
shall be read as PW-5A and that of Ms. Malini Sareen shall be read as
PW-5B.
7. The petitioner also filed the Form XIV. Financial statement
of the petitioner was recorded through his mother. Final arguments
were heard on behalf of the petitioner and respondent no.3.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld.
Counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. My findings are as
under:-
Issue no. 1:
How much compensation are the petitioners entitled to?
OPP.
Computation of compensation:
9. With respect to computation of compensation in MACT
cases, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had encapsulated the law in its
guiding lamp post judgment of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
(2011) 1 SCC 34, where it was held as under:
“General principles relating to compensation
in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (`Act’ for short) makes it clear that the award
must be just, which means that compensation
should, to the extent possible, fully and adequatelyMACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 6 of 36
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 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. Subramonia Iyer
vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D.
Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. – 1995 (1)
SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby – 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is
awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing
food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which
the injured would have made had he not been
injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma
as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 7 of 36
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. 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. Decision of this Court and 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.
6. 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,
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 8 of 36
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 accidents
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 (`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.
7. 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%.
8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent
disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of
compensation under the head of loss of future
earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact
of such permanent disability on his earning capacity.
The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the
percentage of permanent disability as the percentage
of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most
of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is,
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 9 of 36
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. What requires to be assessed
by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently
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 terns 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
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 vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. –
2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M.,
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide
whether there is any permanent disability and if so
the extent of such permanent disability. This means
that the tribunal should consider and decide with
reference to the evidence: (i) whether the
disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the
disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent
total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the functioning of the
entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered
by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is
no permanent disability then there is no question of
proceeding further and determining the loss of future
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 10 of 36
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.
10. 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 ability (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. For example, if the
left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent
physical or functional disablement may be assessed
around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a
carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may
virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to
drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the
claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss
of his left hand may not result in loss of employment
and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could
perform his clerical functions; and in that event the
loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the
case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the
actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there
may not be any need to award any compensation
under the head of `loss of future earnings’, if the
claimant continues in government service, though he
may be awarded compensation under the head of
loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his
hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 11 of 36
continued in service, but may not found suitable for
discharging the duties attached to the post or job
which he was earlier holding, on account of his
disability, and may therefore be shifted to some
other suitable but lesser post with lesser
emoluments, in which case there should be a limited
award under the head of loss of future earning
capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity.
It may be noted that when compensation is awarded
by treating the loss of future earning capacity as
100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to
award compensation separately under the head of
loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may
disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal
amount may have to be awarded under the head of
loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as
otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of
compensation. Be that as it may.”
10. In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under
heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and
damages for pain, suffering and trauma. However, in cases of serious
injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the
claim of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the
heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of
prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The assessment of
future medical expenses would depend upon specific medical
evidence/advise for further treatment and costs thereof. The
determination of damages on account of pain and suffering, loss of
amenities and loss of expectation of life would depend upon the age of
victim, nature of injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and
the effect thereof on life of the petitioner. The process would involve
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 12 of 36
determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those heads. In
the case of assessment of loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability, this Tribunal needs to first ascertain whether the
disability noted/assessed by the medical board is temporary or
permanent in nature. If the disability is permanent in nature, then
whether it is a total permanent disability or partial permanent disability.
If the disability has been referred/expressed in percentage terms, in
reference to any specific limb then the effect of such disability of the
limb on the function of entire body has to be ascertained. Once, the
permanent disability is ascertained, then the Tribunal needs to determine
whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect the earning
capacity of the claimant. To ascertain the same, the Tribunal needs to
ascertain the avocation, profession and nature of work of the claimant
before the incident. The Tribunal also needs to ascertain his age and
then needs to ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in
spite of permanent disability and what he could not do as result of same.
The Tribunal then also needs to ascertain whether the claimant is totally
disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the
permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on
activities and functions which he was carrying on earlier or whether the
claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of
activities and functions to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood
despite permanent disability suffered. After ascertaining the functional
disability through the above process, the Tribunal needs to workout the
loss of earning capacity per month. The Tribunal is thereafter
required to workout loss of earning capacity per annum. An appropriate
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 13 of 36
multiplier needs to be ascertained as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in matter of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC
according to age of the injured/victim. The total loss of earning capacity
then needs to be worked out multiplying appropriate multiplier
ascertained with ascertained annual loss of earning capacity. This is a
case where permanent disability is claimed and compensation is also
demanded qua future loss of earnings on account of permanent
disability, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to
decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the
present matter in light of above preposition.
Determination of Injuries and Duration of the Treatment:
11. It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature of
injuries suffered by the petitioner/injured and duration of treatment as
they need to be kept in mind while ascertaining the compensation under
different applicable heads. The injured/ petitioner was treated vide MLC
No. 378 dated 30.01.2023 and the alleged history has been mentioned as
road traffic accident. As per the MLC, the nature of the injury has been
opined to be ‘dangerous’.
12. Furthermore, vide order dated 29.07.2024, Ld. Counsel for
respondent no. 3 had submitted that the injured/petitioner is in a
vegetative state. Further, PW-3 has also deposed that the
injured/petitioner Parth Sareen is in a vegetative state. Being in a
vegetative state means that the injured/petitioner Parth Sareen cannot do
his daily chores and is completely bed-ridden. Therefore, it is concluded
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 14 of 36
that the injured/petitioner has suffered 100 % disability in relation to his
whole body.
13. From the totality of the circumstances, it has also been
proved that the petitioner was hospitalised on the date of accident i.e.
30.01.2024 to 29.05.2024 in BLK Hospital, Delhi. Thus, his
compensation is computed as follows:
Medical expenses:
14. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 30,00,000/- towards medical
expenses in his Form-XIV. In this regard, the petitioner has placed
reliance on the following medical bills:
Table No. 1
S.No. HOSPITAL/PHARMACY NAME BILL NO. BILL AMOUNT in
DATE Rupees
1 Lahore Hospital Society 30.01.24 40,000/-
2 Dwarka Best Nursing Care 12 10.06.24 5500/-
3 Dwarka Best Nursing Care 16 07.10.24 5500/-
4 City Pharmacy A023365 28.11.24 1430/-
5 City Pharmacy A021201 03.11.24 292/-
6 City Pharmacy A021505 06.11.24 292/-
7 City Pharmacy A021673 08.11.24 1174/-
8 City Pharmacy A0221133 13.11.24 1397/-
9 City Pharmacy A022200 14.11.24 160/-
10 City Pharmacy A022526 18.11.24 1053/-
11 City Pharmacy A023207 26.11.24 248/-
12 City Pharmacy A018107 01.10.24 292/-
13 City Pharmacy A018152 02.10.24 318/-
14 City Pharmacy A018387 04.10.24 1576/-
15 City Pharmacy A018603 06.10.24 251/-
16 City Pharmacy A018838 08.10.24 206/-
17 City Pharmacy A018997 10.10.24 292/-
18 City Pharmacy A019205 12.10.24 534/-
19 City Pharmacy A019880 20.10.24 206/-
20 City Pharmacy A019997 21.10.24 292/-
21 City Pharmacy A020166 23.10.24 1269/-
22 City Pharmacy A025593 27.10.24 691/-
23 City Pharmacy A017493 31.10.24 1198/-
24 City Pharmacy A015016 01.09.24 500/-
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 15 of 36
25 City Pharmacy A015103 02.09.24 1206/-
26 City Pharmacy A015037 02.09.24 500/-
27 City Pharmacy A015225 03.09.24 1697/-
28 City Pharmacy A015416 09.05.24 1104/-
29 City Pharmacy A015742 08.09.24 1260/-
30 City Pharmacy A015667 08.09.24 292/-
31 City Pharmacy A016172 12.09.24 378/-
32 City Pharmacy A016200 13.09.24 219/-
33 City Pharmacy A016373 14.09.24 292/-
34 City Pharmacy A016483 15.09.24 849/-
35 City Pharmacy A017020 20.09.24 1053/-
36 City Pharmacy A016693 17.09.24 292/-
37 City Pharmacy A017124 21.09.24 311/-
38 City Pharmacy A042011 24.09.24 417/-
39 City Pharmacy A017490 25.09.24 383/-
40 City Pharmacy A017601 26.09.24 135/-
41 City Pharmacy A017712 27.09.24 1260/-
42 City Pharmacy A017817 28.09.24 380/-
43 City Pharmacy A018015 30.09.24 178/-
44 City Pharmacy A012443 07.08.24 768/-
45 City Pharmacy A012778 10.08.24 1404/-
46 City Pharmacy A013104 13.09.24 424/-
47 City Pharmacy A013394 16.08.24 1920/-
48 City Pharmacy A013778 20.08.24 510/-
49 City Pharmacy A013940 22.08.24 2061/-
50 City Pharmacy A014228 24.08.24 241/-
51 City Pharmacy A014323 25.08.24 206/-
52 Janta Medicos 4043 03.08.24 1924/-
53 Genius Medicos A029832 06.08.24 218/-
54 Jan Seva Medicos 64923 08.08.24 376/-
55 City Medicos A010945 12.08.24 1411/-
56 City Medicos A012161 28.08.24 1075/-
57 City Medicos A012153 28.08.24 1053/-
58 City Pharmacy A014727 29.08.24 1000/-
59 City Pharmacy A014765 30.08.24 1207/-
60 City Pharmacy A014812 30.08.24 176/-
61 City Pharmacy A014895 31.08.24 1292/-
62 Dwarka Best Chemist A000140 01.06.24 3655/-
63 BLK Max 431702/427946 05.06.24 3799/-
64 Oberai Medicos P.Ltd C241686 06.07.24 756/-
65 Authentic Pathology Labs Pvt. Ltd. 16-17/8/47 20.07.24 500/-
66 Jan Seva Medicos 56207 21.07.24 1051/-
67 Oberai Medicos P.Ltd C241963 23.07.24 392/-
68 Oberai Medicos P.Ltd C241961 23.07.24 9800/-
69 City Pharmacy A011055 23.07.24 71/-
70 Oberai Medicos P.Ltd C242001 25.07.24 450/-
71 Genius Medicos A027116 26.07.24 1209/-
72 Jan Seva Medicos 58880 27.07.24 143/-
73 Jan Seva Medicos 60513 30.07.24 89/-
74 City Pharmacy A027209 07.01.25 948/-
75 City Pharmacy A026615 01.01.25 1238/-
76 City Pharmacy A026456 30.12.24 308/-
77 City Pharmacy A025786 23.12.24 292/-
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 16 of 36
78 City Pharmacy A023938 04.12.24 1095/-
79 City Pharmacy A025585 21.12.24 461/-
80 City Pharmacy A027642 12.01.25 1122/-
81 City Pharmacy A027806 14.01.25 31/-
82 City Pharmacy A027898 15.01.25 292/-
83 City Pharmacy A028290 20.01.25 1163/-
84 City Pharmacy A028826 25.01.25 411/-
85 City Pharmacy A029172 28.01.25 219/-
86 City Pharmacy A029382/- 30.01.25 1523/
87 City Pharmacy A032606 03.03.25 1874/-
88 City Pharmacy A031052 15.02.25 5777/-
89 City Pharmacy A030052 02.06.25 292/-
90 City Pharmacy A030260 08.02.25 1069/-
91 City Pharmacy A028996 27.01.25 319/-
92 City Pharmacy A029961 05.02.25 261/-
93 City Pharmacy A031769 22.02.25 1122/-
94 City Pharmacy A031771 22.02.25 555/-
95 City Pharmacy A031979 24.02.25 319/-
96 City Pharmacy A032261 27.02.25 206/-
97 Karan Chauhan 24.07.24 2340/-
98 Sangram Singh 24.08.24 3400/-
99 Ortomed Surgical 31.07.24 3850/-
100 Karan Chauhan 20.08.24 2360/-
101 Karan Chauhan 30.08.24 2900/-
102 Redcliff Lab 25.08.24 2193/-
103 Karan Chauhan 08.09.24 2800/-
104 Karan Chauhan 16.09.24 2700/-
105 Karan Chauhan 22.09.24 2500/-
106 Saurabh Kumar 22.09.24 256/-
107 Karan Chauhan 29.09.24 4100/-
108 Vicky 29.09.24 255/-
109 Karan Chauhan 08.10.24 2200/-
110 Amit Kumar 08.10.24 285/-
111 Life Express Health Air Pvt. Ltd. 29.05.24 4500/-
TOTAL 1,73,594/-
15. All the bills appear to be proper. Therefore, the petitioner/
injured Parth Sareen shall be entitled to Rs. 1,73,594/- towards medical
expenses.
Loss of income:
16. Coming to the aspect of loss of income, Ld. Counsel for the
injured claimed that the injured was doing a private job and was earning
Rs. 80,000/- per month, however, at the time of the accident, he had leftMACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 17 of 36
the job as he wanted to pursue higher studies. The petitioner also
examined Sh. Raju Giri, Foundever CRM India Private Limited as
PW-1 who deposed that “The injured Parth Sareen had joined our
company on 18.04.2022 and resigned on 30.01.2023.” He also proved
his salary slip and as per the last salary slip for the month of January,
2023, his salary was Rs. 66,783/-. The petitioner also examined
Mr. Ravi Gandhi, Assistant Manager, HR Compliance, Teleperformance
Global Business Private Ltd. as PW-2 who deposed that “The injured
Parth Sareen had joined our company on 27.02.2023. He started
working our company on 01.03.2023 and worked till 31.03.2023. He
resigned on 27.04.2023.” PW-2 also proved his salary slip (Ex. PW-2/3)
as per which he was earning Rs. 30,271/- per month.
17. While, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the salary
of the petitioner shall be considered to be Rs. 66,873/- per month,
Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 contended that his income should be
assessed on the basis of minimum wages prevalent in Delhi at the time
of the accident.
18. Perusal of the case file shows that PW-1 and PW-2 have
proved that the injured Parth Sareen was working. They have also
proved that in his first company proved by PW-1, he was earning
Rs.66,873/- per month while in his second and latest company proved
by PW-2, he was earning Rs. 30,271/- per month. This Tribunal is of the
view that the income of the injured has to be fixed as per his
competence, educational qualification and capacity to get a job. Since,
the petitioner was working at one point of time before the accident, itMACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 18 of 36
cannot be said that his income should be assessed as per the minimum
wages. In fact, it should be assessed as per the income he has once
earned as that determines his competence and intelligence. However,
since as per his last pay slip before the accident, the petitioner/ injured
was earning Rs. 30,271/- per month, this Tribunal is of the view that the
monthly income of the petitioner/ injured should be considered to be Rs.
30,271/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner/
injured Parth Sareen is concluded to be Rs. 30,271/- per month.
However, since it is an admitted case that the petitioner was not working
at the time of the accident, it cannot be said that he suffered any loss of
income. Therefore, no compensation is awarded towards loss of income.
Pain and Suffering:
19. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- under the
head pain and suffering. It is true that a particular amount cannot be
fixed under the head pain and suffering which could be applicable to all
cases as it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the
fact that since the petitioner has received grievous injuries, therefore,
petitioner must have suffered pain and sufferings owing to the said
injuries. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the
injured/petitioner as mentioned in the MLC as well as the disability
certificate, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-
towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental shock:
20. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 50,00,000/- under the head
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 19 of 36
mental shock. While the mental shock suffered by the petitioner cannot
be estimated in terms of money but considering the nature of injuries
suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal hereby grants
compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental shock.
Special Diet:
21. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- under the head
special diet but there is no cogent evidence on record regarding money
spent by the petitioner upon special diet. However, considering the
nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of
the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this head.
Hence, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-
towards expenses incurred on special diet.
Conveyance charges:
22. The petitioner has claimed Rs.5,00,000/- under the head
conveyance charges but there is no cogent evidence for the same.
However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the
injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must
have incurred some expense on conveyance. Hence, this Tribunal hereby
grants compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
23. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 13,84,000/- under the head
attendant charges. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the
petitioner requires one attendant and one nurse to take care of him andMACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 20 of 36
therefore, payment towards both the attendant and the nurse be
reimbursed to the petitioner. The petitioner examined Mr. Lokendra
Kumar as PW-3 who deposed that “I further state that I am working as
nurse to injured Parth Sareen for last six months…The injured is in
vegetative state till date from the date of the accident. I use to give
medicines to the injured by crushing the medicines through RT pipe,
breakfast/ food after crushing through RT pipe. I use to give injections
through canula. I use to put drip through which, I give medicines. I use
to give suction to remove the cough and nose. I use to give folsih
catheter care to the injured.” He further deposed that “My employer
Aditya Singh Chauhan used to give me Rs. 1500/- per 12 hours. At that
time, two attendants used to look after the injured Parth Sareen. For the
last three months, I am getting Rs. 2,000/- per day for 24 hours.” Thus,
it is clear from the testimony of PW-3 that for the first three months, the
parents of the petitioner paid Rs. 2400/- per day as nurse attendant
charges and after that the parents of the petitioner have paid Rs. 2,000/-
per day as nurse attendant charges. PW-3 was examined on 30.11.2024
and he had already worked for six months till then. Thus, the attendant
charges have to be calculated w.e.f. May, 2024. Therefore, for nurse
attendant charges, the petitioner shall be entitled to (Rs. 2400 x 30 x 3) +
(2000 x 30 x 7) = 2,16,000 + 4,20,000/- which equals to Rs. 6,36,000/-.
Thus, the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 6,36,000/- towards nurse attendant
charges.
24. Further, the petitioner has claimed compensation towards
attendant charges. The petitioner examined Mr. Vivek Kaushal as PW-4
who deposed that “I am working as an attendant to the injured Parth
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 21 of 36
Sareen since last about six months. I sponge his body, wash his clothes
and assist him for his natural calls etc. I also help him in all physical
activities such as lifting him, providing him support for therapy and
other treatments or feeding him etc. I also take care that the patient does
not get bed sores. I get Rs. 1,300/- per day. The parents of the injured
also provide me food and lodging.”
25. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 argued that the
petitioner shall not be provided with compensation charges towards two
attendants. However, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that in the
present case, the petitioner/ injured requires assistance of two people
and both his attendants have a different role to play. He has prayed that
compensation be awarded towards payment to both the attendants.
26. It is an established case that the injured is in a vegetative
state and requires assistance to do his daily chores. The mother of the
injured examined herself as PW-5B and deposed that she is also
physically disabled and cannot take proper care of her son. Further,
PW-3 has clearly summed up his role as a nurse attendant which is to
provide proper medication to the injured at appropriate time and PW-4
has also defined his role as an attendant. Therefore, this Tribunal is of
the view that employment of one nurse attendant and one regular
attendant is reasonable and in fact, mandatory in a case like this.
Therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to compensation towards
payment of charges for the nurse attendant as well as the regular
attendant. Considering the testimony of PW-4, the petitioner shall be
entitled to Rs. 3,90,000/- (Rs. 1300 x 30 x 10) towards regular attendant
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 22 of 36
charges.
In view of the above, this Tribunal hereby grants a total
compensation of Rs. 10,26,000/- towards attendant charges.
Compensation for loss of amenities:
27. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 50,00,000/- under
this head. The petitioner has not filed anything on record to prove his
claim towards loss of amenities. However, taking into account the
injuries suffered by him and also noticing the disability suffered by him,
Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Compensation for loss of marriage prospects:
28. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 50,00,000/- under
this head. It cannot be denied that the petitioner has suffered major loss
of marriage prospects due to the accident in question. Therefore, taking
into account the injuries suffered by him and also noticing the disability
suffered by him, Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this
head.
Compensation for loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness
in future life etc.:
29. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs.80,000/- per month
under this head. The petitioner has not filed anything on record to prove
his claim, however, taking into account the injuries suffered by him and
also noticing the disability suffered by him, Rs. 5,00,000/- lump sum is
awarded to the petitioner under this head.
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 23 of 36
Future loss of income:
30. The petitioner Parth Sareen has claimed loss of future
earning in his Form XIV. It has already been established by PW-3 that
the petitioner is in a vegetative state. This fact has also been admitted by
Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 and his submission was recorded in
ordersheet dated 29.07.2024. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the view that
the petitioner/ injured has suffered 100% permanent disability in relation
to his whole body. The income of the petitioner has been assessed as Rs.
30,271/- per month.
31. As per the Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the injured/
petitioner Parth Sareen is 27.12.2002, thus, as on the date of accident i.e.
30.01.2024, the petitioner was aged 21 years 01 month and 03 days old.
Thus, he was more than 21 years old and less than 22 years of age on the
date of the accident. Accordingly, the Multiplier of eighteen (18) is
taken for purposes of calculating the loss of income of the petitioner
(Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors.,
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision –
31.10.2017). Further, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700
(SC), the future prospects of Parth Sareen shall be 40% as he was below
the age of 40 years at the time of accident on 30.01.2024.
32. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of
the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 30,271/-. In view of the above, the
loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 24 of 36
Monthly income Rs. 30,271/0
Annual Income Rs. 30,271 x 12 =
Rs. 3,63,252/-
Add Future Prospects @ 40% Rs. 3,63,252 x 40% =
Rs. 1,45,300.80/-
Total income Rs. 5,08,552.80/-
Disability @ 100% Rs. 5,08,552.80/- x 100%=
Rs. 5,08,552.80/-
Loss of Income after multiplier (18) Rs. 5,08,552.80/- x 18 =
Rs. 91,53,950.40/-
(rounded off to Rs. 91,53,950/-)
33. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by
the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, it is held that the
petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 91,53,950/- under the head future loss
of income.
34. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances,
the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines
governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is
being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 1,73,594/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 30,271/- Loss of income Nil. Add future prospects @ 40% Rs. 1,45,300.80/-
Loss of future income (income X % Rs. 91,53,950.40/-
Earning Capacity X Multiplier) (rounded off to Rs. 91,53,950/-)
Any other loss/expenditure Nil.
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 25 of 36
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 5,00,000 + Rs. 5,00,000
Suffering = Rs. 10,00,000/-
Special diet Rs. 1,00,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 10,26,000/- Conveyance charges Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 5,00,000/- Disfiguration Nil. Loss of Marriage prospects Rs. 5,00,000/-
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 5,00,000/-
hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs.1,30,53,544/-
35. In the case of Benson George v Reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 2022 decided on 25.02.2022,
Hon’ble Supreme Court had awarded an interest of 6% per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition DAR i.e.
01.05.2024 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
36. The Financial Statement of the petitioner/injured was
recorded through his mother by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said
statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately
Rs.3,00,000/- to 4,00,000/- per month. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that at least Rs. 30 Lacs be released upfront as that much has
already been spent by the parents of the petitioner on the treatment and
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 26 of 36
care of the petitioner.
37. Keeping in view the above as well as the fact that the
petitioner has already spent a huge amount on his treatment, it is held
that on realization of the award amount of Rs.1,30,53,544/- (Rupees One
Crore Thirty Lacs Fifty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Four
only), Rs. 30,53,544/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Fifty Three Thousand Five
Hundred and Forty Four only) plus entire interest amount be released to
the petitioner/claimant Parth Sareen and the balance amount of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) shall be put in 40 monthly
fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand only) each for a period
of 01 month to 40 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in
terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated
07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of
FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving
account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his
residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
38. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to the
petitioner only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving
account in a bank near his residence with endorsement of the bank that
no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been
issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued
without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
39. The above FDR(s) shall be prepared with the following
conditions as enumerated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 27 of 36
dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to
be added in the saving account or fixed deposit
accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts
of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank
account and not a joint account.
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited
by the ECS in the saving bank account of the
claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without
the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any
cheque book and/or debit card to claimants.
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. The
bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of
claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect
of the account of claimants from any other branch of
the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the
passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no
cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and
shall not be issued without the permission of the
Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook
with the necessary endorsement before the Court for
compliance.
40. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 28 of 36
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 30.01.2024
2. Name of the Injured: Parth Sareen
3. Age of the Injured: 21 years
4. Occupation of the Injured: Private job
5. Income of the Injured: Rs. 30,271/-
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken: Acharya Bhiskhu Govt. Hospital
and BLK Hospital.
8. Period of Hospitalization: 30.01.2024 to 29.05.2024.
9. Whether any permanent 100 %
disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs.1,73,594/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 1,00,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 10,26,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 1,00,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 30,271/-
(vi) Loss of income Nil.
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 29 of 36
(vii) Add future prospects @ 40 % Rs. 1,45,300.80/-
(viii) Any other loss which may Nil.
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life: future treatment and
future attendant charges.
2.
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 5,00,000 + Rs. 5,00,000=
physical shock Rs. 10,00,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 5,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration
Nil.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 5,00,000/-
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience,
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, Rs. 5,00,000/-
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed
and nature of disability as 100% Permanent
permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 100%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (income Rs. 91,53,950.40/-
x % earning capacity x (rounded off to Rs. 91,53,950/-)
Multiplier)
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 30 of 36
4. Total Rs. 1,30,53,544/-
1(i+ii+iii+iv)+2(i+ii+iii+v+vi) +
3(iv)
5. Total Compensation Rs. 1,30,53,544/-
Interest awarded 6%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous
award passed by Ld. -
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 6,87,486.65/-
award w.e.f. 01.05.2024 (10 (Rounded off to Rs. 6,87,487/-)
months and 16 days)
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 1,37,41,031/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 37
10. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para no. 37
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 37
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 17.04.2025
award
LIABILITY:
41. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1,
Anoop Kumar; owned by respondent no. 2, Sanjay Kumar and insured
with respondent no. 3, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Thus, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are liable and respondent
no.3 is liable to indemnify respondent nos. 1 and 2. Thus, respondent
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 31 of 36
no.3. shall pay the award amount to the petitioner.
Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
RELIEF
42. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 – ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.1,30,53,544/-(Rupees One Crore Thirty Lacs Fifty Three Thousand
Five Hundred and Forty Four only) along with interest @ 6% from the
date of filing of DAR i.e. 01.05.2024 till realization with the Civil Nazir
of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant, failing
which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 7.5% per
annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
43. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
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 & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the
claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
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
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 32 of 36
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)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
17.04.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
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).
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 after due compliance.
Digitally signed
by RUCHI
Announced in the open Court today RUCHI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL ASRANI
on this 17th day of March, 2025. ASRANI Date: 2025.03.17
16:53:08 +0530
(Dr. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 33 of 36
FORM – XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1 Date of Accident 30.01.2024
2 Date of filing of Form-I – First
Accident Report (FAR) 01.02.2024
3 Date of delivery of Form-II to
the victim(s) 01.05.2024
4 Date of receipt of Form-III from
the Driver 20.03.2024
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from
the Owner 20.03.2024
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance of 20.03.2024
the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-VIA and
Form VIB from the Victim(s) 01.05.2024
8 Date of filing of Form-VII – 01.05.2024
Detail Accident Report (DAR)
9 Whether there was any delay or
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, Yes.
whether any action/direction
warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company Not provided
11 Whether the Designated Officer
of the Insurance Company Yes.
admitted his report within 30
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 34 of 36
days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or
deficiency on the part of the
Designated Officer of the No.
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of the The petitioner did not accept the legal offer
Insurance Company. filed by the insurance company on
29.07.2024.
14 Date of award 17.03.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s) were
directed to open savings bank Yes.
account(s) near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to open
Savings Bank Account(s) near
his place of residence and
produce PAN card and Aadhar 09.04.2024
Card and the direction to the
bank not to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect on the
passbook(s).
17 Date on which the claimant(s)
produced the passbook of their
savings bank account(s) near the
21.01.2025
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement, PAN
card and Aadhaar Card?
18 Permanent residential address of As per Award.
the claimant(s).
MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 35 of 36
19 Whether the claimant(s) savings
bank account(s) is near their Yes.
place of residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were
Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant
examined at the time of passing
was recorded through his mother Smt.
of the Award to ascertain
Malini Sareen on 11.03.2025.
his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed
by RUCHI
RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI AGGARWAL Date: ASRANI 2025.03.17 16:53:18 +0530 (Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani) PO, MACT-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 17.03.2025 MACT No. 294/24 Parth Sareen Vs. Anoop Kumar &Ors. Page 36 of 36
[ad_1]
Source link