Delhi District Court
Santosh Kumar vs Saurabh Kumar on 1 February, 2025
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 191/19
CNR/UID No. DLNT01-002822-2019
Sh. Santosh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Sahdev Thakur,
R/o H.No. 115,
Gali No. 1,
Harijan Colony,
Siraspur, Delhi.
(Injured)
......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Saurabh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Sughar Singh,
R/o Pilkhana Bakewar,
Etawah, UP.
(Driver)
2. Vizien Organics,
312, Amber Tower,
Commercial Complex,
New Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
3. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh,
Delhi.
(Insurer)
...............Respondents
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 1 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
Date of Institution : 01.04.2019
Date of Arguments : 01.02.2025
Date of Decision : 01.02.2025
APPEARANCES:
Sh. A.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
None for driver and owner.
Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for insurance co.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD
1. The petitioner is seeking compensation in the wake of Detailed
Accident Report (DAR) filed by police corresponding to the investigation
carried out in case FIR No. 697/18 U/s 279/337 IPC registered at PS. S.P.
Badli, with regard to Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on
08.08.2018 at about 11:30 AM near School, Siraspur Village, Delhi,
involving Truck bearing registration no. DL1LX-1660 (offending vehicle)
being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. DAR filed
by police, was treated as claim petition under Section 166(4) of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act‘).
2. According to DAR, on 08.08.2018, the petitioner who was into
the business of supplying eggs, was going to supply eggs at Khera on his
moped bearing registration no. DL8S-CG-0521 and after supplying the same
at about 11:30 AM, when he reached near School, Village Siraspur, one
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 2 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
Eicher Truck bearing no. DL1LX-1660 came from front side and hit against
the aforesaid moped of petitioner, as a result of which, he fell down on the
road and sustained injuries. Thereafter, PCR Van came at the spot and took
him to BSA Hospital, Delhi, where petitioner was medically examined. A
case u/s. 279/337 IPC was registered at PS. S.P. Badli vide FIR No. 697/18
on the statement of petitioner. The offending vehicle was found to be owned
by respondent no. 2 and insured with Shriram General Insurance Company
Ltd /respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
3. The respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e., driver and registered owner have
failed to file their WS despite grant of sufficient time and opportunities.
Accordingly, their defence was struck off vide order dated 05.09.2019
4. In its written statement, the respondent no. 3/insurance company
has not raised any statutory defence as provided u/s. 149(2) M.V. Act. It has
been claimed that alleged accident had taken place due to sole carelessness
and negligence of the petitioner. It has been claimed that the alleged accident
took place on 08.08.2018 and FIR in the present case was registered on
01.09.2018 and there was no explanation of delay in lodging FIR and thus,
alleged offending vehicle has been falsely implicated by the petitioner in the
present case. It is admitted that offending vehicle was insured with the
respondent no. 3 having validity from 22.06.2018 to 21.06.2019.
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 3 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed vide order dated 05.09.2019 passed by my Ld. Predecessor:-
1. Whether the injured Santosh Kumar suffered
injuries in road traffic accident on 08.08.2018 at 11:30
am near School Siraspur Village, Delhi, within the
jurisdiction of PS. S.P. Badli, Delhi, due to rashness
and negligence on the part of Sh. Saurabh Kumar who
was driving Truck bearing registration no.
DL1LX-1660, owned by Vizien Organics and insured
with Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In support of his claim, the petitioner has examined two
witnesses i.e. himself as PW1 and PW2 Dr. Pankaj Bansal, SR(Ortho),
Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and his evidence was closed vide order
dated 20.10.2023. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by any of the
respondents and RE in the matter was closed vide order dated 10.05.2024.
7. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR petition, evidence led
by parties has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon
& proved considered. Arguments addressed by respective counsels
considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding applicable precedents,
have been appreciated.
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 4 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
Issue No. 1
8. The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was placed on the
petitioner. To prove the said issue, the injured examined himself as PW1 by
way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A). In his evidence by way of affidavit
(Ex. PW1/A), injured 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. DAR Ex. PW1/2 (Colly)
3. Copy of his MLC Ex. PW1/3
4. Original treatment Ex. PW1/4(Colly)
record/prescription and bills
9. PW1 injured in his testimony by way of affidavit (PW1/A) has
deposed on the lines of DAR petition and has testified that on 08.08.2018, he
was going to supply eggs at Khera on his moped bearing registration no.
DL8S-CG-0521 and after supplying the same at about 11:30 AM, when he
reached near School, Village Siraspur, offending vehicle i.e., Eicher Truck
bearing no. DL1LX-1660 came from front side and hit against his moped, as
a result of which, he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He further
deposed that thereafter, PCR Van came at the spot and took him to BSA
Hospital, Delhi, where was medically examined. He categorically deposed
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 5 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
that the accident took place due to sole rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle by its driver/respondent no. 1.
10. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company,
he deposed that he was not having any driving licence at the time of accident.
He further deposed that the offending vehicle came from front side. He
further deposed that he was driving on his left side of the road. He further
deposed that there was no divider on the road where the accident took place.
He further deposed that the offending vehicle i.e., Truck hit his moped from
right side. He deposed that he had not seen the registration number of
aforesaid truck. However, the driver of the aforesaid truck was caught hold
by the public persons present there after causing the accident. He denied the
suggestion that the accident took place due to his own negligence. He further
deposed that he was riding his moped in rash and negligent manner.
11. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 that the respondents
more particularly insurance company could not impeach his testimony
through litmus test of cross-examination and said witness is found to have
successfully withstood the test of cross-examination. Even otherwise, PW1
himself is the injured having sustained injuries due to the accident in
question. There is no reason as to why he would depose falsely against
respondent no.1. Furthermore, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 697/18 u/s
279/337 IPC was registered at PS. S.P. Badli with regard to accident in
question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of DAR), would show that same
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 6 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
was registered on the statement of petitioner on 01.09.2018. The contents of
said FIR would show that the petitioner had disclosed the same sequence of
facts leading to the accident, as deposed by him during the course of inquiry
as PW1. The registration number of offending vehicle to be DL1LX-1660 is
also disclosed therein. Even otherwise, no suggestion had been put to
petitioner regarding false implication of offending vehicle by the counsel for
insurance company during cross-examination. Rather, a suggestion has been
put to the petitioner that the alleged accident had taken place due to his rash
and negligent driving of his moped. Thus, the involvement of offending
vehicle is not disputed by the insurance company. The insurance company
has failed to substantiate the plea that alleged offending vehicle has been
falsely implicated in the present matter by leading any cogent evidence in this
regard. It is relevant to mention here that petitioner did not have any kind of
ill will or enmity against the respondent no. 1 so as to falsely implicate him in
criminal case or to depose falsely against them during the course of inquiry.
12. There is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of insurance
company that testimony of PW1 is liable to be discarded on the ground that
FIR in the present case was registered on 01.09.2018 i.e. after delay of about
22 days from the date of accident. No doubt, accident occurred on 08.08.2018
and FIR in the present case, was registered on 01.09.18 i.e. after about 22
days from the date of accident. It is worthwhile to note that DD No. 42B was
recorded in PS. S.P. Badli, Delhi on the basis of a call received on 08.08.2018
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 7 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
regarding the accident in question. The said document has gone unchallenged
and unrebutted from the side of respondents.
13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances where the cogent
explanation has been furnished about the delay in the registration of FIR in
criminal case, same can not be considered to be fatal for the case of claimant
in present proceedings. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that delay in
lodging FIR can not be a ground to throw away the case of claimant in such
like proceedings in the backdrop of the conditions prevailing in our society
where one can not expect common man to rush to police station for
registration of FIR immediately after the accident. While saying so, I am also
fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter titled as “Ravi
Vs. Badri Narayan & Ors.”, Civil Appeal No. 1926/2011, decided on
18.02.2011. Hence, I am of the view that the delay of about 22 days in
registration of FIR in this case has been sufficiently explained and the
claimants can not be denied just and fair compensation on this ground.
14. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence,
material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have
been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely
Sh. Sourabh Kumar has been charge sheeted for offences punishable
U/s. 279/338 IPC 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.
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 8 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
15. 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
liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the
respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had
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.
16. It is relevant to mention here that copy of MLC (Ex. PW1/3) of
petitioner filed would show that he had been taken to Dr. BSA Hospital,
Delhi with alleged history of RTA on the date of accident itself i.e., on
08.08.2018. 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 motor vehicular accident. Again, there is
no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents including
insurance company.
17. 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 preponderence of probabilities, that he sustained injuries in
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 9 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
road accident which took place on 08.08.2018 at about 11:30 am near School
Siraspur Village, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 2.
18. 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.
19. It has been duly established that petitioner sustained injuries as
per his MLC in the road accident which took place on 08.08.2018 at about
11:30 am near School Siraspur Village, Delhi, due to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
20. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant
equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and
dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards
and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation” (2009)
6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges in
Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held
as under:
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 10 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
“16. “Just compensation” is adequate
compensation which is fair and equitable, on
the facts and circumstances of the case, to make
good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong,
as far as money can do so, by applying the well
settled principles relating to award of
compensation. It is not intended to be a
bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though
involving certain hypothetical considerations,
should nevertheless be objective. Justice and
justness emanate from equality in treatment,
consistency and thoroughness in adjudication,
and fairness and uniformity in the decision
making process and the decisions. While it may
not be possible to have mathematical precision
or identical awards, in assessing compensation,
same or similar facts should lead to awards in
the same range. When the factors/inputs are the
same, and the formula/legal principles are the
same, consistency and uniformity, and not
divergence and freakiness, should be the result
of adjudication to arrive at just compensation…”
21. These guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental
Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been
held:-
“10. The possession of one’s own body is the first
and most valuable all human rights and whileSantosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 11 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025awarding 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…..”
11. 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”.
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in further development of the legal
position for grant of reasonable and fair compensation, has pronounced
guiding parameters 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:-
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 12 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
“…..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 effort 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…..”
23. Accordingly, the entitlement of petitioner to just compensation is
being assessed in the background of well settled parameters and guidelines as
discussed herein-above.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
24. The petitioner has deposed in his evidence by way of
affidavit(Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, he was taken to Dr. BSA
Hospital, Delhi, where he was medically examined and thereafter, he was
admitted in private hospital Avantika Diagnostic & X-ray, Sector – 3, Rohini,
Delhi. He further deposed that due to his critical condition, he was operated
thrice and had incurred medical expenses of about Rs. 3,00,000/-. During his
cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he did
not have any mediclaim policy. He denied the suggestion that he had not
incurred any amount on his medical treatment, special diet, conveyance and
attendant. He further denied the suggestion that his medical bills and
treatment record filed by him were false and fabricated.
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 13 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
25. It is relevant to note that the injured has relied upon medical bills
amounting to Rs. 3,32,997/- (which are part of Ex. PW1/4 colly). It is not out
of place to mention that the respondents more particularly insurance company
has not been able to dispute the authenticity and genuineness of the medical
bills filed on record during the course of inquiry. They have also not led any
evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said bills.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 3,32,997/- is awarded to the petitioner under this
head.
LOSS OF INCOME
26. PW1 has deposed that he was 38 years of age and used to deliver
eggs on his vehicle at his locality at Khera, Siraspur and was earning
Rs. 30,000/- per month. He further deposed that due to the injuries suffered
by him in the accident, he could not work and is unable to work during his
whole life. During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for insurance
company, he deposed that he had not filed any document to show that he was
working or earning anything at the time of accident. He volunteered that he
was doing the business of sale of eggs. He denied the suggestion that he was
not employed for gain or that he was not earning any amount at the time of
accident.
27. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for injured argued
that due to the injuries suffered by him, he could not work for considerable
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 14 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
period and thus, he has suffered loss of income and as such, appropriate
compensation shall be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
28. The treatment record i.e., Progress Notes (which is part of
Ex. PW1/4 colly), of petitioner shows that he had suffered trauma to right
lower limb. Apart from the aforesaid treatment record, petitioner has failed
to file any other medical treatment record. In the absence of any definite
evidence being brought on record showing the actual period till which the
petitioner had received medical treatment for the injuries sustained by him
due to accident in question, it would necessarily involve some guess in
assessing the loss of income. It can not be overlooked that the petitioner had
sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question. Apart from this,
petitioner has also suffered permanent disability to the extent of 75% in
relation to right lower limb. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by
the petitioner and the permanent disability suffered by him, it is presumed
that he would not have been able to work at least for a period of 6 months or
so including his recovery period.
29. It may be noted here that no definite evidence whatsoever has
been brought on record to prove monthly income of injured/petitioner at the
time of accident in question. However, the petitioner has filed his educational
qualification documents i.e. 10th class marksheet Ex. PW1/6 . Thus, his loss
of income has to be assessed while taking the income of a Matriculate person
under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question. The
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 15 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
minimum wages of a matriculate person were Rs. 16,858/- per month as on
the date of accident which is 08.08.2018. Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,01,148/- (Rs.
16,858/- x 6) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
30. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non-
pecuniary heads, guidance is derived from ruling of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the matter titled as ” Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors.” passed
in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, has been
held as under:-
“15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be
fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies
from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the
fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as
aforesaid, he mighthave suffered acute pain and
sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also
consumed heavy dose of anti-biotic etc. and also might
have remained without movements of his body for a
considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the
pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya
Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of decision:
2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-“On
account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note
that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms
of a money value, However, compensation which has to
be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the
pain and suffering. The objective facts relatable to pain
and suffering would be:(a)Nature of injury.
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 16 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment.”
31. As already considered, the petitioner required treatment for
about 6 months from the date of accident and remained incapacitated to
resume his work of earnings for at least a period of 6 months owing to
grievous injuries suffered in the road traffic accident. Apart from this, the
petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent
of 75% in relation to his right lower limb and his case was of infected non-
union right femur. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings,
inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the accident in question.
Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, duration of
treatment and permanent disability suffered by him, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
is considered reasonable towards pain & sufferings.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
32. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on
record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the
accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained
permanent disability to the extent of 75% in relation to his right lower limb
and his case was of infected non-union right femur. Thus, he would not be
able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question and his
quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries
suffered by him and his continued treatment for considerable period and the
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 17 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
permanent disability suffered by him, I award a notional sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the
petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
33. 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 47% in
relation to his right lower limb and there was shortening of right lower limb
by 3 inches. 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 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.
However, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is considered
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 18 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 25,000/-each for special diet and
conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for attendant charges to the
petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
34. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have
sustained 75% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. Same
is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 29.10.2021 (Ex. PW2/1) of
Medical Board of Dr. BSA Hospital, Narela, Delhi.
35. As per the testimony of PW2 Dr. Pankaj Bansal, SR(Ortho), Dr.
BSA Hospital, Delhi, the petitioner was found to have suffered 75%
permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. He deposed that the
aforesaid Medical Board assessed the disability of the patient to be permanent
in nature which is not likely to improve. He had also brought the assessment
chart with disability evaluation details and exhibited the same as Ex. PW2/2.
He further deposed that due to aforesaid disability suffered by the petitioner,
he would have severe difficulty in squatting on floor, kneeling and sitting
cross-leg, he would also have moderate difficulty in walking on slope and
taking turns and would have mild difficulty in rest of the parameters as
mentioned in stability components of the calculation chart. During his cross-
examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that the patient
never remained under his treatment. He further deposed that he was not the
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 19 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
member of Disability Board. He denied the suggestion that he did not have
any personal knowledge of the examination of the patient for issuance of
Disability Certificate Ex. PW2/1. He volunteered that he had examined the
patient and suggested X-rays etc, thereafter, the physiotherapy re-validated
the disability of the patient. He denied the suggestion that he did not
physically examine the patient at the time of issuance of permanent disability
certificate. He further deposed that he could not tell the functional disability
of aforesaid injured in relation to whole body.
36. Now coming back to the facts of present case, as per the case of
the petitioner, he was doing the work of delivering eggs on his moped at the
time of accident and he has suffered 75% permanent disability in relation to
right lower limb. PW-2 Dr. Pankaj Bansal, SR(Ortho), Dr. BSA Hospital,
Delhi has deposed that the disability of the petitioner is permanent in nature
and same is not likely to improve. It is pertinent to mention here that any
type of work requires physical dexterity in limbs and digits to operate hand
and power driven tools and equipment commonly used in the profession of
fabrication, physical ability to lift, carry and ability to continually walk,
stand, climb, stoop, bend, kneel, reach in all directions, etc. It may be noted
here that for any profession, proper movement of all the limbs are very
necessary which is not possible in the case of petitioner due to permanent
disability suffered by him in the accident. The disability certificate
(Ex. PW2/1) of injured would reveal that he had suffered 75% permanent
disability in relation to his right lower limb. It is also relevant to mention
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 20 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
here that as per the disability certificate, the case of petitioner was non-union
right femur. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case
including the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner as well as the
disability suffered by him, his functional disability is taken as 40% with
regard to whole body.
37. In copy of Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW1/1) of petitioner, his date of
birth is mentioned as 02.03.1979. The date of accident is 08.08.2018. Thus,
the petitioner was aged about 39 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the
appropriate multiplier would be 15 in view of judgment passed in case titled
as “Sarla Verma Vs. DTC”, 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. The monthly income of
petitioner has been taken as Rs. 16,858/- per month as discussed above. Thus,
the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 6,743.20p (Rs. 16,858/- x
40/100). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 16,99,286.40p
(Rs. 6,743.20p x 12 x 140/100 x 15). Thus, a sum of Rs. 16,99,286.40p is
awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 3,32,997/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 1,01,148/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 1,00,000/-
enjoyment of life
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 21 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 1,00,000/-
attendant charges
6. Loss of future income Rs. 16,99,286.4p
Total Rs. 24,33,431.40p
Rounded off to Rs. 24,33,000/-
38. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which
of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no.
3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence as it had no statutory
defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or
condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in
view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance
company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance
company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided
accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
39. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of
Rs. 24,33,000/- (including interim award amount of Rs. 25,000/- granted vide
order dated 22.12.2020) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f date of
filing the claim petition i.e. 01.04.2019 till the date of its realization, in
favour of petitioner and against the respondents. (Reliance placed on United
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 22 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023
passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 21.04.2023).
APPORTIONMENT
40. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was
recorded on 30.03.2024. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the
awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) shall
be immediately released to the petitioner through his MACT Bank account
no. 41481394772, State Bank of India, Pocket H-3, Sector – 18, Rohini,
Delhi, having IFSC Code SBIN0015841 and remaining amount alongwith
interest amount be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/-
for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth,
having cumulative interest.
41. 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).
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 23 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
(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.
(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 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.
Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 24 of 25
MACP No. 191/19; FIR No. 697/18.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 01.02.2025
(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.
42. Respondent no. 3/Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., being
insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with
SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which
insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of
delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer a
sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the aforesaid bank account of petitioner, 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 the award be given dasti
to the petitioner and also to counsel for the insurance company for
compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen
signatures, copy of bank passbooks 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
Announced in the open RICHA by RICHA MANCHANDA MANCHANDA Date: 2025.02.01 Court on 01.02.2025 15:55:28 +0545 (RICHA MANCHANDA) Judge MACT-2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Santosh Kumar Vs. Saurabh & Ors. Page 25 of 25
[ad_1]
Source link