Delhi District Court
Vikas Chauhan vs Anil Kumar on 20 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.: 513/2019
FIR no. 733/2018
PS Garhmukteshwar
U/s 279/338/304A IPC
CNR No.: DLSE01 004704-2019
Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.
Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan
S/o Sh. Bhagwat Singh Chauhan
R/o H. NO. 25C, Block J
Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur Road, New Delhi.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Krishan Pal
R/o Village + Post Dehrakutti
PS Bahadurgarh, Distt. Hapur, UP.
.....R-1/ Driver
2. The Regional Manager
UPSRTC, Meerut, UP.
.....R-2/ Owner
Date of accident : 10.12.2018
Date of filing of petition : 04.07.2019
Date of Decision : 20.01.2025
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 1 of 50
AWARD
1. A Claim Petition was preferred under Section 166 and 140
of Motor Vehicle Act on 04.07.2019 for grant of compensation of
Rs.1,25,00,000/- by Sh. Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan
(hereinafter called the claimant) against Sh. Anil (hereinafter
called the driver/respondent no.1) and UPSRTC, Meerut, UP
(hereinafter called the owner/respondent no.2) in respect of
injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on
10.12.2018 at about 07:30 AM near Lala Babu Baijal Memorial
Inter College, Lodipur, within the jurisdiction of PS
Garmukteshwar, Distt. Hapur (hereinafter referred as spot of
accident), allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving of
Bus bearing Registration no. UP15AT 8036 (hereinafter referred
as offending vehicle).
2. On 10.12.2018, around 7:30 am, Vikash Chauhan @
Harish Chauhan was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. UP
15CP 3224 (hereinafter referred as accidental vehicle) with his
mother, Smt. Brahmwati, from Meerut to Village Jalalpur. When
they reached near the spot of accident, alleged offending vehicle,
driven recklessly and at high speed, suddenly changed lanes and
collided with their motorcycle due to which both of them were
thrown onto the road, sustaining severe injuries. They were
rushed to Mangalam Hospital in Meerut, but unfortunately, Smt.
Brahmwati died on her way to the hospital. Vikash received first
aid at Mangalam Hospital and was later shifted to Hope Hospital,
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 2 of 50
Meerut, where he was hospitalized from 10.12.2018 to
11.12.2018. He was then referred to AIIMS, New Delhi, where
he remained hospitalized from 11.12.2018 to 25.12.2018. FIR
bearing no.733/2018 was registered at PS Garmukteshwar, Distt.
Hapur, Uttar Pradesh.
3. It is stated that injured was 28 years of age at the time of
accident and employed as an IT -Head with Axona Honda in
Ghaziabad at a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month. It is
prayed that a compensation of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- be awarded in
favour of claimant Vikash Chauhan along with interest @ 12%
p.a.
Reply:
4. Notice of the claim petition was issued to respondents in
response to which, any reply did not filed by R-1.
5. Reply filed on behalf of R-2 wherein it is stated that
accident took place solely due to the negligence of deceased.
Other general defences were taken. Further para-wise contents of
claim petition are denied.
6. Disability Assessment Report dated 29.01.2020 was
received with 100% permanent physical impairment in relation to
D9 & D-10 Fracture Spine with Paraplegia both Lower Limb
with Bladder/Bowel involvement.
Issues:
7. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed order dated 04.02.2020:
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 3 of 50
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic
accident on 10.12.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of
vehicle bearing no. UP 15AT 8036 being driven by R-1, owned
by R-2 ? OPP.
ii). Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to
what extent and from whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
Evidence:
8. Matter was then listed for Petitioner's Evidence. PW-1
Vikash Chauhan tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW1/A.
He relied upon following documents in evidence:-
Ex.PW1/1- Medical treatment records
Ex.PW1/2- Original medical bills
Ex.PW1/3-Disability certificate
Ex.PW1/4- Salary slip
Ex.PW1/5-10th, 12th, Computer Engineering and PGDBM Mark
Sheet and certificates and graduation Certificate (OSR)
Ex.PW1/6- Copy of Pan Card
Ex.PW1/7- Copy of Aadhar Card.
Ex.PW1/8- Certified copies of criminal case record.
PW-1 was cross examined by counsel for R-1 & 2.
9. Dr. Ayush Tiwari, Senior Resident Orthopaedic, Pt. Madan
Mohan Malviya Hospital was examined as PW-2 who proved
Disability Certificate already Ex.PW1/3. He clarified that as per
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 4 of 50
Disability Certificate, injured has suffered 100% permanent
disability in relation to D-9, D-10 fracture spine with paraplegia
both lower limb with bladder/bowel involvement. He was also
cross examined by counsel for R-1 & 2.
10. Sh. Subham Sharma was examined as PW-3 who proved
following documents:
Ex.PW3/1- His Authority Letter
Ex.PW3/2- Offer Letter dated 18.09.2025 of injured.
Ex.PW3/3- Salary Certificate w.e.f. September 2018 to
December 2018
Ex.PW3/4- Performance Certificate
Ex.PW3/5- Attested copy of bank statement of injured/Vikash
PW-3 was also cross examined by counsel for R-1 & 2.
11. Petitioner Evidence was closed vide order dated
01.09.2022. Matter was then listed for Respondent Evidence.
12. R1W1 Sh. Anil Kumar tendered his evidentiary affidavit as
Ex.R1W1/A and relied upon copy of his DL as Ex.R1W1/1
(OSR). He was cross examined by counsel for claimant.
13. After conclusion of Respondent Evidence, Matter was then
listed for Final Arguments.
Final Arguments:
14. Final Arguments were advanced by the contesting
counsels. Counsel for the claimant argued that the injured is in a
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 5 of 50
deplorable medical condition, suffering from 100% permanent
physical impairment due to the D9 and D10 fracture spine,
resulting in paraplegia of both lower limbs with bladder and
bowel involvement. It was emphasized that the claimant, who
was previously a qualified and active engineer earning a monthly
salary of Rs. 30,000, has lost not only his ability to earn but also
his dignity of independent living. The injury has rendered him
totally dependent upon others for his basic needs in day to day
life. Counsel further argued that the accident almost destroyed
the career of claimant leaving him with no option of future
prospects of growth in his work area. Written Submissions also
filed on behalf of claimant side. Counsel for claimant also relied
upon following judgments:
(a) Pritam Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. MAC App. No.
952/2011 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
(b) Ankur Kapoor Vs.Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Civil
Appeal No.17998/2017, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(c) Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. 2020 ACJ1042, passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(d) Mohd. Gulam Nabi Khan Vs. Mohd Aftab Alam & Ors. 2020
ACJ 1491
(e) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Master Anshu Kumar @
Bhola & Ors. MAC App. 160/2020
15. The counsel for respondents, on the other hand, argued that
the claimant's own negligence substantially contributed to the
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 6 of 50
unfortunate accident and resulting injuries. It was contended that
the claimant failed to exercise due caution and adherence to
traffic rules, which played a significant role in the occurrence of
the accident. Furthermore, he argued that the compensation
sought by the claimant is grossly excessive and unreasonable.
16. On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic
accident on 10.12.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of
vehicle bearing no. UP 15AT 8036 being driven by R-1, owned
by R-2 ? OPP.
17. What is required to be ascertained is whether rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle resulted in an accident
which caused injuries to the claimant.
18. It has been held in catena of cases that negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the
proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the
proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are
not applicable (support drawn from the cases of Bimla Devi &
Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors (2009) 13
SC 530, Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India
Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, and also from
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as 2009 ACJ
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 7 of 50
287 Del.
19. PW-1 Vikash Chauhan, who is the injured himself in the
matter deposed that he was riding his motorcycle with his mother
as pillion rider at a normal speed on the correct side of the road
on 10.12.2018 at about 07.30 AM near Lal Babu Baijal Memorial
Inter College, Lodhipur that speeding UP Roadways Bus bearing
Reg. No. UP 15AT 8036, coming from the side of
Garhmukteshwar/ opposite to the accidental vehicle abruptly
changed its driving lane and ended up crashing into the
motorcycle causing severe injuries to both the riders. He was
cross examined at length by counsel for the respondents. In
respect of mode and manner of the accident, he declined the
suggestion that he was overspeeding or was driving on the wrong
side of the road or that R-1 was driving at the normal speed with
necessary precaution. He also declined the suggestion that his
motorcycle slipped and fell in front of the bus due to his
negligence and speedy driving.
20. PW-1, as apparent from the testimony and record is an
educated person who could be taken to be aware of the traffic
rules and the basic safety norms expected of a reasonable person
while driving on a public way. PW-1 himself got seriously
injured in the accident and also lost his mother and therefore, was
the best person apart from the driver of the offending vehicle to
explain the circumstances of the accident. PW-1 has faced
extensive cross examination by counsel for the respondents and
the only theory, respondents could project is about negligent
driving on the part of injured himself leading to the accident.
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 8 of 50
PW-1 has vividly narrated the mode and manner of the accident,
clearly testifying as to how the offending vehicle, coming from
the opposite direction, abruptly without any warning and without
any plausible reason, changed its lane and crashed into the
motorcycle on the other side of the road. The site plan filed as
part of charge sheet clearly shows that the bus moved to its
extreme right side to crash into the motorcycle plied on extreme
left of the road. This also falsify the projected defence on the part
of respondents that the motorcycle slipped due to speedy driving
on the part of injured and fell in front of the bus as this would not
explain as to why the bus transcended and diverted into the
wrong lane.
21. R-1 also appeared in the witness box and testified that the
motorcycle was being driven at a high speed because of which it
lost control and slipped in front of the bus while R-1, being an
experienced driver, was not driving rashly or negligently and
therefore, is not responsible for the accident. During cross
examination, R-1 admitted driving the offending bus from
Muradabad to Meerut. He also admitted that bus met with an
accident near Lala Babu Baijal Memorial Inter College and that
he was charge sheeted by police for causing harm to public
persons due to rash and negligent driving on the public way and
has been facing trial since then. He admitted that he has not filed
any counter complaint qua his false implication admitting that the
family of the injured or the eye witnesses has no personal grudge
against him. He also declined the suggestion that he was driving
the offending bus in high speed and rashly due to which accident
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 9 of 50
happened. There is thus no denial on the part of R-1 that he was
at wheels at the time of accident and the accident indeed
happened with the involvement of the offending bus. The manner
of accident has however been disputed by him and deliberated in
the preceding paragraphs. As explained earlier, there is no
explanation tendered as to how and why the bus meandered
towards the wrong side to crash into the motorcycle, coming
from the opposite side. It also substantiate the affirmations on the
part of PW-1 that the bus was overspeeding and rashly driven
oblivious to the consequences, the act might entail. There is no
evidence that the accidental vehicle was being rashly and
negligently driven leading to the accident. R1W1 deposed that
the victims were without helmet at the time of accident, however,
this aspect has not even been put to PW-1 during cross
examination and therefore, has no substance to it apart from a
bare affirmation.
22. Counsel for respondents could not elicit any contradiction
in the testimony of injured and therefore, there is no reason on
record, as to why his testimony should be discarded or not
considered credit worthy. As such, it is settled that this issue has
to be decided on the scales of preponderance of probabilities and
any fishing or roving enquiry is not required to be undertaken
into the negligence of the offending vehicle.
23. As such, in view of the above analysis of material on
record, evidence proved on record, charge-sheet against R-1, it is
held that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving
of the offending vehicle and the issue No.1 is decided
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 10 of 50
accordingly, in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP"
24. Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an
enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the amount
of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166,
the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the
application to the insurer and after giving the parties
(including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard,
hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be,
each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of
section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just
and specifying the person or persons to whom
compensation shall be paid and in making the award
the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which
shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the
vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of
them, as the case may be: Provided that where such
application makes a claim for compensation under
section 140 in respect of the death or permanent
disablement of any person, such claim and any other
claim (whether made in such application or otherwise)
for compensation in respect of such death or
permanent disablement shall be disposed of in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies
of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and
in any case within a period of fifteen days from the
date of the award.
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 11 of 50
(3) When an award is made under this section, the
person who is required to pay any amount in terms of
such award shall, within thirty days of the date of
announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit
the entire amount awarded in such manner as the
Claims Tribunal may direct."
25. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019.
26. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle
compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position
as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These
general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.]
27. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and
Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the
compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a
bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should
not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 12 of 50
duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the
amount of compensation, which should be just. What
would be "just" compensation is a vexed question.
There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases
for measuring the value of human life or a limb.
Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise
mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the
particular facts and circumstances, and attending
peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or
mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be
considered in the background of "just" compensation
which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of
the expression "which appears to it to be just", a wide
discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination
has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach
and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and
arbitrariness.. ..."
28. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following
observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation
payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have
to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and
special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which
the victim has actually incurred and which are
capable of being calculated in terms of money;
whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical
calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts
pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by
the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of
earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other
material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental
and physical shock, pain and suffering, already
suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii)
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 13 of 50
damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of
life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on
account of injury the claimant may not be able to
walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of
expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the
normal longevity of the person concerned is
shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,
disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
29. Certain principles for delineating just compensation were
enumerated in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.,
(2011) 1 SCC 343, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Following observations are relevant in the context:
"40.General principles relating to compensation in injury
cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award
must be just, which means that compensation should,
to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore
the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The
object of awarding damages is to make good the loss
suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money
can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the
damages objectively and exclude from consideration
any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture
with reference to the nature of disability and its
consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to
be compensated for the physical injury, but also for
the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury.
This means that he is to be compensated for his
inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those
normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but
for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as
he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K.
Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3
SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 14 of 50
Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC
467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)]
.]
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded
in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the
injured would have made had he not been injured,
comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of
normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will
be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It
is only in serious cases of injury, where there is
specific medical evidence corroborating the
evidence of the claimant, that compensation will
be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings
on account of permanent disability, future medical
expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of
life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 15 of 50
under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they
involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily
ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head
of future medical expenses--Item (iii)--depends upon
specific medical evidence regarding need for further
treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary
damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves
determination of lump sum amounts with reference to
circumstances such as age, nature of
injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant
and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant.
Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain
necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if
necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the
assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability--Item (ii)(a). We are concerned
with that assessment in this case.
Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent
disability
8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to
perform an activity in the manner considered normal for
a human being. Permanent disability refers to the
residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the
body, found existing at the end of the period of
treatment and recuperation, after achieving the
maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is
likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured.
Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body on account of the injury,
which will cease to exist at the end of the period of
treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be
either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers
to a person's inability to perform all the duties and
bodily functions that he could perform before the
accident, though he is able to perform some of them and
is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total
permanent disability refers to a person's inability to
perform any avocation or employment related activities
as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities
that may arise from motor accident injuries, are of a
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 16 of 50
much wider range when compared to the physical
disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act",
for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in
Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of
injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be
permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming
compensation.
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed
by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or
more often than not, with reference to a particular limb.
When a disability certificate states that the injured has
suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the
right lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent
disability with reference to the whole body. The extent
of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in
terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb,
obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of
disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent
disability of the right hand and 80% permanent
disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of
permanent disability with reference to the whole body is
140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the
body have suffered different percentages of disabilities,
the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the
permanent disability with reference to the whole body
cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as
a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation
under the head of loss of future earnings would depend
upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability
on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not
mechanically apply the percentage of permanent
disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of
earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of
economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning
capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be
different from the percentage of permanent disability.
Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 17 of 50
particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability
would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity,
and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45%
as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45%
loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases,
equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning
capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent
disability will result in award of either too low or too
high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the
effect of the permanent disability on the earning
capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of
earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the
income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to
arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the
standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency). We may however note that in some cases,
on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the
Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning
capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is
approximately the same as the percentage of permanent
disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will
adopt the said percentage for determination of
compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this
Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether
there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of
such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal
should consider and decide with reference to the
evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or
temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is
permanent total disablement or permanent partial
disablement;
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 18 of 50
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of
such disablement of the limb on the functioning of
the entire body, that is, the permanent disability
suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent
disability then there is no question of proceeding
further and determining the loss of future earning
capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is
permanent disability then it will proceed to
ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains
the actual extent of permanent disability of the
claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to
determine whether such permanent disability has
affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
disability on the actual earning capacity involves three
steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities
the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent
disability and what he could not do as a result of the
permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding
compensation under the head of loss of amenities of
life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation,
profession and nature of work before the accident, as
also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the
claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of
livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the
activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying
on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from
discharging his previous activities and functions, but
could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and
functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to
earn his livelihood.
.
.
.
.
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 19 of 50
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed
above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising
from injuries), do not result in loss of earning
capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with
reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be
assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning
capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss
of earning capacity is not the same as the
percentage of permanent disability (except in a few
cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence,
concludes that the percentage of loss of earning
capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent
disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or
who examined him subsequently to assess the
extent of his permanent disability can give evidence
only in regard to the extent of permanent disability.
The loss of earning capacity is something that will
have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference
to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in
different percentages of loss of earning capacity in
different persons, depending upon the nature of
profession, occupation or job, age, education and
other factors.”
30. The above-said principles have been placed reliance upon
in a recent judgment reported as Sidram Vs. The Divisional
Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr., arising out of
SLP (Civil) no. 19277 of 2018 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India as decided on 16.11.2022.
31. It is settled proposition of law as held in catena of
judgments that “just compensation” should include all elements
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 20 of 50
that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or
he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no
amount of money or other material compensation can erase the
trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious
accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary
compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society
assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the
victims who have to face their lives.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES
Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves
reimbursement of actual amount spent on account of injury
suffered in an accident to undo the monetary loss, suffered by the
claimant, as ascertainable from the evidence on record. Given
hereunder are various heads under which compensation for
pecuniary damages is assessed:
(A) Expenditure on Medical Treatment:
(i) PW-1 has deposed that he has incurred Rs. 10,00,000/- upon
his medical treatment. Immediately after the accident, Injured
was rushed to Manglam hospital where he was given primary
treatment thereafter, he was admitted for one day w.e.f.
10.12.2018 to 11.12.2018 in Hope Hospital. He was again
admitted in AIIMS Trauma where he remained hospitalized from
11.12.2018 to 25.12.2018. Perusal of Discharge Summary of
AIIMS Trauma Center (Ex.PW1/1) noted the nature of injuries as
D10 Burst Fracture with D9 Posterior Cortex Fracture with
Bilateral D9 Pedicle Fracture with Lateral Flexion of D9/D10.
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 21 of 50
Injured has filed medical bills as Ex.PW1/2. A summary of bill
has also been filed as part of arguments totaling of
Rs. 1,95,900/-. Counsel for claimant submitted that Bills totaling
of Rs. 1,95,900/- are the only actual expenditure towards medical
treatment. Further, sundry / miscellaneous expenses cannot be
ruled out during the admission in the hospital and subsequently
also. Accordingly, injured is awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards
sundry medical expenses. Further, considering the mobility
restrictions of injured, Rs.50,000/- is awarded to him for
procuring wheelchair for his mobility. The total amount thus
comes to Rs. 2,65,900/- (Rs. 1,95,900/- + Rs.20,000/-
+Rs.50,000/-).
(B) Expenditure on Conveyance:
(i) Claimant has deposed that he has incurred Rs. 50,000/-
upon conveyance charge. However, any bill pertaining to the
same has not been filed. The nature of injuries are grievous with
100% permanent physical impairment in relation to D9 & D-10
Fracture Spine with Paraplegia both Lower Limb with
Bladder/Bowel involvement. It is evident that injured had
undergone prolonged treatment post accident and visited several
times in different hospitals for his treatment. The nature of
injuries and disability must have compelled him for engaging
supports persons while visiting different hospitals on different
occasion for several months. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- is
awarded towards the head of conveyance.
(C) Expenditure on Special Diet:
(i) Claimant has deposed that he has spent Rs.50,000/- on
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 22 of 50
special diet. As per the medical record, Claimant underwent
treatment for several months post accident. Considering the
nature of injuries and prolonged treatment history, he would
necessarily be put on special dietary prescriptions for effective
and prompt recovery. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is
awarded to claimant towards expenditure on special diet.
(D) Expenditure towards services of Attendant:
(i) Claimant/PW-1 has deposed that he is unable to move, walk,
sit, run, travel and drive vehicle due to his disability and is bound
to lead his entire life being dependent upon others. PW-2 Dr.
Ayush Tiwari testified that the patient is not able to walk, sit and
run by his own. He further opined that the injured cannot do his
daily activities without assistance and he needs at least one
attendant permanently to perform activities of daily living. He
further deposed that injured is totally dependent upon others for
his day to day requirements besides toilet and urination. During
cross examination, PW-2 deposed that the nature of injuries
suffered by injured is permanent in nature and any recovery is
not possible. It is evident that injured has not filed any supporting
bill to show that he had made payment towards attendant
charges. It is also settled that even though any formal attendant is
not engaged still the services provided by family members also is
required to be compensated. It is evident that the injured would
require services of attendant all through his life considering his
dependency upon others even for basic daily needs. Injured has
been assessed with 100% permanent physical impairment in
relation to D9 & D-10 Fracture Spine with Paraplegia bothMACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 23 of 50
Lower Limb with Bladder/Bowel involvement. Services of any
attendant in such state would be required to attend to his basic
body and medical needs at all times of the day for the rest of his
life.
(ii) It is settled that the multiplier system should be followed not
only for determining the compensation on account of loss of
income but also for determining the attendant charges. {as
recognized in Gobald Motor Services Ltd. Vs. R. M. K.
Veluswami 9 AIR 1962 SC 1 as refereed and relied in Kajal Vs.
Jagdish Chand CIVIL APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2020 and Sidram
(supra)}
(iii) A similar case of Kajal (supra) where injured suffered 100%
disability and was rendered to do any incapacitation to do any
activity for entire life, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
recognized the applicability of multiplier system for realistic
determination of attendant charges. Following observations
pertaining to the aspect under consideration are reproduced
hereunder:
“This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier method in various cases
like Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati 10 1971 AC 115
14and Ors.11, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v.
Trilok Chandra and Ors.12, Sandeep Khanduja v. Atul Dande and
Ors.13. This Court has also recognised that Schedule II of the Act
can be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in each case.
Keeping the claimant’s age in mind, the multiplier in this case
should be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by the High Court.
25. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the basic amount
taken for determining attendant charges is very much on the lower
side. We must remember that this little girl is severely suffering from
incontinence meaning that she does not have control over her bodily
functions like passing urine and faeces. As she grows older, she will
not be able to handle her periods. She requires an attendant virtuallyMACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 24 of 50
24 hours a day. She requires an attendant who though may not be
medically trained but must be capable of handling a child who is bed
ridden. She would require an attendant who would ensure that she
does not suffer from bed sores. The claimant has placed before us a
notification of the State of Haryana of the year 2010 wherein the
wages for skilled labourer is Rs.4846/ per month. We, therefore,
assess the cost of one attendant at Rs.5,000/ and she will require two
attendants which works out to Rs.10,000/ per month, which comes
to Rs.1,20,000/ per annum, and using the multiplier of 18 it works
out to Rs.21,60,000/ for attendant charges for her entire life. This
takes care of all the pecuniary damages.”
(iv) Similarly in the case of Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Vs.
Namita Sekhon & Anr, (2022) 8 SCC 489, the claimant suffered
100% disability and was awarded attendant charges applying the
appropriate multiplier on the rates as accepted in the case of
Kajal (supra). Following observations pertaining to the aspect
under consideration are reproduced hereunder:
“16. In view of the said legal position, the compensation can be
assessed in pecuniary heads i.e. the loss of future earning, medical
expenses including future medical expenses, attendant charges and
also in the head of transportation including future transportation. In
the nonpecuniary heads, the compensation can be computed for the
mental and physical pain and sufferings present and in future, loss of
amenities of life including loss of marital bliss, loss of expectancy in
life, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment,
frustration, mental agony in life etc.
“17. On perusal of the record out of the pecuniary heads MACT has
not awarded any amount in future loss of earning even having 100%
permanent disability while the High Court granted Rs.6,00,000/ only
for 10 years because the appellant is now practicing as an advocate
in the Court accepting his earning Rs.60,000/ per annum. From the
pleadings and evidence brought, it is clear that the father of the
appellant was a Professor and the mother was an IAS officer. The
claimant has been nurtured and brought up in a status enjoyed by his
parents. He was planning to become an Executive or IAS officer. On
account of the injuries in temporal region and the permanent
disability suffered, he was unable to do his studies as expected or
planned. After sincere efforts he could have passed the LL. B and
started the advocate profession. A judicial notice can be taken of theMACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 25 of 50
fact that for a proficient advocate the person must be physically fit
as he is required to move frequently to attend the professional work
reaching from one Court to other, and for movements to complete
other professional commitments. Looking to the nature of injuries
and the permanent disablement which the claimant has suffered, i.e.,
lower limb is completely paralyzed while his upper limb is partially
paralyzed having 100% permanent disability resulting in bodily
movements being hampered. The capacity of the claimant being an
advocate cannot be equated with other practicing advocate having
no deformity in the same profession. The claimant is required to
make extraordinary efforts to attend the proceedings in the Court
and to come up to the expectations of the client. The disablement
suffered to the claimant is for whole life and in the said fact, in our
considered view, the future loss of earning calculated by the High
Court only for 10 years is not justified. If we accept the future loss
of earning Rs.5,000/ per month as decided by the High Court which
annually comes to Rs.60,000/ and apply the multiplier of 18 as
applicable looking to the age, then the sum comes to Rs.10,80,000/,
in the said head.
23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature
of injuries in our considered opinion, the appellant is entitled for a
sum of Rs.4,00,000/ in the head of loss of amenities of life and
marital bliss, pain and sufferings, loss of enjoyment and loss of
expectancy, Rs.1,00,000/ as awarded by the High Court is
maintained in the head of special diet. Thus, in the nonpecuniary
heads, the compensation as determined comes to Rs.5,00,000/.”
(v). Attendant charges were fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month in
the case of Sidram (supra) where permanent physical disability of
45% of whole body was certified by the doctors for an accident
in the year 2012.
(vi). Although, any bill has not been filed against attendant
charges, acknowledging the need of at least 2 attendants in 24
hours, the amount towards monthly attendant charges is
evaluated as Rs. 10,000/-. As per Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/7, date of
birth of injured is 02.06.1991 and as such, he was about 27 years
and 6 months at the time of accident and hence applicable
multiplier shall be 17. Applying the standard multiplier method,
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 26 of 50
the attendant charges are calculated as under:
Rs. 10,000/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.20,40,000/-
(vii) Accordingly Rs. 20,40,000/- is awarded under the head of
Attendant Charges.
(E) Loss of earning during the period of treatment:
(i) PW-1 testified that he was employed as IT Head at Axon
Honda in Ghaziabad at the time of the accident, earning a
monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-. He has filed his salary slips for
October and November 2018 as part of his evidence, placed on
record as Ex.PW1/4, reflecting monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-.
During cross-examination, he stated that he joined Axon Honda
in the year 2015 with a salary of Rs.18,000/- per month, which
was later increased to Rs.30,000/- at the time of accident. He
denied the suggestion that the documents Ex.PW1/4 were forged
or fabricated.
PW-3, Mr. Shubham Sharma, also testified on behalf of the
claimant and produced several documents in evidence, including
an Offer Letter dated 18.09.2015 (Ex.PW3/2), salary certificates
for September to December 2018 (Ex.PW3/3), a performance
certificate for the injured (Ex.PW3/4), and the injured’s bank
statements (Ex.PW3/5). PW-3 confirmed that the injured, Vikas,
joined the company on 19.09.2015 and worked until 10.12.2018
as the IT Head, earning Rs.30,000 per month at the time of the
accident. He further stated that Vikas left the job after the
accident being unable to move or walk.
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 27 of 50
On the basis of documents produced on behalf of
employed as part of evidence, there is no doubt that injured Vikas
Chauhan was employed as IT Head in a private company on a
monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-.
(ii) PW-1/ injured also deposed that he has not been able to join
his duty post accident as he was rendered incapable even for
basic routine activities including walking and sitting. During
cross examination, he deposed that he was terminated by Axon
Honda company on account of his disability. He deposed that he
lastly received his salary in November 2018. PW-3 Sh. Shubham
Sharma also reiterated that injured had to leave his job after the
accident on account of bodily restrictions. Medical history of
injured shows that he was hospitalised in AIIMS Trauma Center
for about 2 weeks post accident and continued to remain under
active medical treatment for about 1 & ½ years post accident
with several visits to different hospitals as evident from the
prescriptions, pharmacy bills and consultations filed on record. It
is therefore, evident that injured, on account of nature of injuries
that he suffered and on account of active medical treatment that
he continued to undergo to normalize his ailing situation, it is
reasonable to understand that, he would have been totally
incapacitated to even figure out the actual permanent damage that
he would have to endure for the rest of his life and therefore,
even remotely thinking to resume the job would not have been
anticipated. Loss of income for the period treatment for one year
is therefore granted.
Thus, loss of income is calculated to be Rs. 30,000/- x 12 =
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 28 of 50
Rs.3,60,000/-.
(F) Loss of future earning
(i) It is settled that a person is required to be compensated not
just for the physical injury but also for the loss he has suffered as
well as the loss which he might entail for the rest of his life on
account of those injuries which he sustained in the accident. This
necessarily means that he is required to be compensated for his
inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy normal
amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the injury, his
inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
(Support drawn from the judgment titled as C. K. Subramania
Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair (1969) 3 SCC 64.
(ii) Disability Assessment Report dated 29.01.2020 was
received with 100% permanent physical impairment in relation to
D9 & D-10 Fracture Spine with Paraplegia both Lower Limb
with Bladder/Bowel involvement.
(iii) Before proceeding further, it is important to understand as
to what disability means and also types thereof. This aspect has
been delved into by Hon’ble SC in Raj Kumar (supra):
“8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform
an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the
maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to
remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability
refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on
account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be
either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to aMACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 29 of 50
person’s inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions
that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to
perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful
activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to
perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result
of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from
motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when
compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“the Disabilities Act”,
for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i)
of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a
motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose
of claiming compensation.”
(iv) The term ‘disability’ means the decrements to the
functional efficacy of body of injured whereas ‘functioning’
encompass all the body functions and activities for an
independent life. Functional disability is to determine the extent
of loss or extent of restrictive functionality considering the nature
of activities required to be necessarily performed in efficient
discharge of duties and the limb effected. This computes the
extent of adverse effect of physical disability upon the functional
efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his
earning capacity. The process entails understanding and
enumerating the skill set required for performing specific
activities. To sum up, functional disability basically measures the
extent of ability having been compromised to carry out basic
everyday tasks or even more complex tasks required for and
independent living. The limitations may occur on account of
disability in the personal sphere, in the social sphere and in the
occupational sphere. In the personal sphere it may encompass the
daily activities of a person, his body function and his
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 30 of 50
involvement in basis life situations. At the societal level, it could
mean difficulty in involvement and participation in social and
community activities interfering the interpersonal interaction and
relationship adversely impacting the civic life. When disability
restricts the vocation or employment avenues to make earning for
his living, it falls in the category of disability in the occupational
sphere. The disability might occur on account of age or any
illness and in the case at hand by way of an accident. A person
living a normal life in particular set of circumstance and making
his living by engaging in any work has suffered disability which
might impede his daily life activities, both on a personal and
social scale and might also impact his ability to continue earning
as much as before and his future employment avenues.
(v) What is thus required to be assessed is the effect and
impact of disability upon the working efficiency of injured and
whether it would adversely impact his earning capabilities in
future. It is settled that the Tribunal should not mechanically
apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of
economic loss or loss of earning capacity.
(vi) Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines for
the Tribunal to be able to arrive at an objective figure to quantify
the loss for the purpose of computing the compensation in the
judgment of Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant extracts of this
judgment for the purpose of further discussion are reproduced
hereunder:
“Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 31 of 50
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the
doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not,
with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate
states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an
extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45%
permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent
of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of
a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot
be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If
there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80%
permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent
of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140%
(that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have
suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof
expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to
the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result
of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of
loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact
of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The
Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of
permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of
earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of
economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity,
arising from a permanent disability will be different from the
percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly
assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of
permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of
earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced
show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45%
loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the
extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent
(percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either
too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of
the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured;
and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of
money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the
standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find
that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the
permanent disability, is approximately the same as the
percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the
Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of
compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court inMACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 32 of 50
Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010)
10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298]
and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10
SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is
any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent
disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and
decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent
total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire
body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the
person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent
disability then there is no question of proceeding further and
determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the
Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it
will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal
ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the
claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine
whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect
his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the
actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to
first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite
of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of
the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding
compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The
second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of
work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find
out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any
kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities
and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he
was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser
scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can
continue to earn his livelihood.
.
.
.
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 33 of 50
.
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from
injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to
the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the
percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently,
the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as
the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few
cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence,
concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is
the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who
examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the
extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity
is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal
with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons,
depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job,
age, education and other factors.”
(vii) Further in the case of “Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar
& Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC), the question at hand was
deliberated and following observations as relevant in the context
were made:
“In the context of loss of future earning, any physical
disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with
reference to the nature of work being performed by the
person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and
once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or
loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take
the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work
himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the
puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of
transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country.
The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or
the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road
insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of
a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the
loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg
(or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound toMACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 34 of 50
have very traumatic effects on one’s personal, family or
social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working
in the office would not interfere with his work/earning
capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal
farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.
(viii) The question of assessment of impact of disability on the
earning capacity has been dealt in several cases but it is
understood that each case has to be evaluated on its contextual
dynamics established by way of evidence at hand. It brings us to
a question whether extent of permanent disability as medically
determined can simply be taken to be the extent of functional
disability and hence, the loss of earning capacity. It has been held
in various pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
and Hon’ble High Court that equating the two as a criteria would
result in an inobjective and absurd compensation. There however,
might be certain cases where the two would correspond to each
other but it cannot be mechanically applied rather requires
evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to
reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity.
(xi) The injured in the present case was diagnosed with 100%
permanent physical impairment due to a D9 and D10 spine
fracture, resulting in paraplegia with bladder and bowel
involvement, which indicates a total and irreversible loss of
motor and sensory functions in the lower limbs. PW-2 Dr. Ayush
Tiwari testified that the injured is completely unable to walk, sit,
or run independently and cannot perform daily activities without
assistance, requiring a permanent attendant for even the most
basic and routine tasks for dignified survival. The dependency on
others for every aspect of daily life underscores the extent ofMACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 35 of 50
functional impairment. Furthermore, the nature of the injuries is
permanent, with no possibility of recovery, as confirmed during
cross-examination by PW-2. Functional disability is determined
by the ability to perform essential tasks necessary for
independent living, and in this case, the evidence clearly
establishes that the injured is entirely incapacitated in this regard.
Functional disability would be thus assessed as 100%.
(F1) Future Prospect:
(i) It is settled that future prospect (as laid down in the well
considered judgment of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay
Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) shall be payable, not only in fatal
cases but also in the case of permanent disability. (Support drawn
from Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar & Ors., AIR 2020 SC
4424).
(F2) Multiplier:
(i) The Multiplier Method was coined by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008, decided on
15.04.2009 to ascertain the future loss of income in relation to
the age of the deceased, in order to bring about the uniformity
and consistency in determination of compensation payable in
fatal and serious injuries matters. Relevant observations with
respect to the multiplier method in the abovementioned case read
as under:
“The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of
dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances ofMACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 36 of 50
the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier.
The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased
(or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as
to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a
stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual
interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that
ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the
period for which the dependency is expected to last.”
(ii) The standard multiplier method was directed to be applied not
only to ascertain the loss of dependancy in fatal accident case but
also to determine future loss of earning in serious disability
matters as well {as laid in the case of Raj Kumar (supra)}. In a
recent Judgment of Pappu Deo Yadav vs Naresh Kumar, AIR
2020 SUPREME COURT 4424, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
relied upon and reiterated the principles laid in various judgments
passed by it in the case of Sr. Antony @ Antony Swamy Vs.
Managing Director KSRTC, Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 2018 and
held that stereotypical or myopic approach must be avoided and
pragmatic reality of life must be taken into account to determine
the impact of extent of disability upon the income generated
capacity of victim.
(iii) The income of the injured per annum as determined upon
appreciation of evidence, thus, forms the multiplicand. A table of
multiplier with reference to the age was laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India. The appropriate multiplier, applicable in
this case would be 17 (for age between 26-30 years).
(iv) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation
under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(a) Annual income (Rs. 30,000/- x 12) = Rs.3,60,000/-
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 37 of 50
(b) Future prospect (40% of Rs.3,60,000/-) = Rs. 1,44,000/-
__________________
(c) Total = Rs. 5,04,000/-
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs. 5,04,000/-
(e) Hence, the ‘Total Loss of Future Income’ shall be :-
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
100% (Rs. 5,04,000/- X 17) = Rs. 85,68,000/-
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
(i) Injured is entitled to both, pecuniary as well as non-
pecuniary damages. As the name suggests pecuniary damages are
designed to make good the pecuniary loss which can be
ascertained in terms of money whereas non pecuniary damages
are general damages to compensate the injured for mental and
physical shock, pain, suffering, loss of expectation of life,
inconvenience, hardship, frustration, stress, dejectment and
unhappiness suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in
the accident. It takes into account all the aspects of a normal life
which deluded injured on account of accident. Given the nature
of heads covered, it is bound to involve guess work on the part of
Tribunal involving some hypothetical consideration as well,
primarily considering the special circumstances of the injuredMACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 38 of 50
and the effect of those upon his future life.
(ii) Regarding non-pecuniary loss, following was stated in
Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12 (page 446):
“Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern: Damages awarded for pain and
suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is
taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being
interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus
there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a
provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries,
and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury
will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff,
including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is
reflected in the actual amount of the award.
(iii) In Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India,
(1999) 6 SCC 667, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that
the object of an award of damages is to give the plaintiff
compensation for damage, loss or injury he has suffered. The
Court further held that the elements of damage recognized by law
are divisible into two main groups: pecuniary and non-pecuniary
loss. While the pecuniary loss is capable of being arithmetically
worked out, the non- pecuniary loss is not so calculable. Non-
pecuniary loss is compensated in terms of money, not as a
substitute or replacement for other money, but as a substitute,
what McGregor says, is generally more important than money: it
is the best that a court can do.
(iv). In the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC
274, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that if a collection
of cases on the quantum of damages is to be useful, it must
necessarily be classified in such a way that comparable cases can
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 39 of 50
be grouped together. No doubt, no two cases are alike but still, it
is possible to make a broad classification which enables one to
bring comparable awards together. Inflation should be taken into
account while calculating damages.
The above two cases were also referred and relied in the case of
A. Rupin Manohar Through Sh. S. Anandha … vs Mohd. Ansari
& Ors. MAC App. 602/2015 decided on 17 August, 2017 by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
(v) To sum up, Compensation under non-pecuniary heads
involves objective assessment of the damages in a bid to undo the
loss, the injured would incur on account of his inability to lead a
normal life and earn as much as he would, but for the injuries
sustained. The whole idea behind assessment for damages for
compensation is to put the claimant in the same position in so far
as money can. The very nature of these damages, compulsorily
involves some guesswork and hypothetical considerations,
however, efforts should be made to adjudicate these on the basis
of objective parameters rather than guided by subjective
sympathy. The nature and severity of injury, the age, nature of
disability are some of those parameters. Given hereunder are
various heads under which compensation for non-pecuniary loss
(general damages) is assessed:
A. Damages for pain, suffering and trauma on account of
injuries:
(i) The mental and physical loss cannot always be
arithmetically computed in terms of money. These form theMACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 40 of 50
intangible losses suffered by injured for no fault of his. Although
any form of human suffering cannot be equated in money,
however, the object remains to compensate in so far as the money
can compensate. Certain observations made by the Supreme
Court of India in R. D. Hattangadi are relevant in the context:
“10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant
who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on
account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this
background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain
and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a
lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the
physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by
courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation
payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to
compensate such injury “so far as money can compensate” because
it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or
personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered
physical frame.
(ii) Certain factors were also laid down for consideration in the
case of The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs Mahadeva Shetty
And Anr Appeal (Civil) 5453 of 2003 further relied in the case of
Sidram (supra) for awarding compensation for pain and
suffering. The observations made in the aforesaid case as relevant
to the context are reproduced hereunder:
“113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as
observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be
mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes
physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep
mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant
trauma of the victim’s having to live in a world entirely different
from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with
degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal
choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge’s mind,
whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe
limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity
(which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right
to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving theMACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 41 of 50
person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she
or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the
victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most
discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award
niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is
resultant affront to the injured victim. [See: Pappu Deo Yadav
(supra)]
(iii) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Suresh
(supra) observed as follows:
“2. … There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or
for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic
computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of
realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates that there should be grant
of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of
law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor
a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.”
But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of
the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of
compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question
whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must
provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of
suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In a discourse
of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations
about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the
individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human
dignity. (as relied in the case of Jagdish Vs. Mohan AIR 2018
SUPREME COURT 1347, by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India).
(iv) Injured has been diagnosed with D10 Burst Fracture with
D9 Posterior Cortex Fracture with Bilateral D9 Pedicle Fracture
with Lateral Flexion of D9/D10. Injured was a young boy barely
27 years of age when he met with an accident. He must be having
his own dreams and aspirations from life which were totally
shattered post accident. Even his every day basic routine
activities are severely restricted. He is totally dependent upon
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 42 of 50
support from other person for his even for his daily activities.
The medical dictum of nearly no possibility of significant
improvement in his living conditions must have totally shattered
his love and zeal for life. It is evident that the accident has caused
deep emotional and psychological scars on his mind and soul. As
such, no amount can be stated to be sufficient to undo the
suffering of injured, however, an attempt is being made to
compensate the pain and suffering which he is bound to endure
for the rest of his life. An amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- is awarded
to the claimant against pain, suffering and and trauma sustained
in the accident.
(B) Loss of amenities of life:
(i) It compensates the victim on account of his inability to
enjoy the basis amenities of life as any other normal person can,
taking into account the age and the deprivation he would have to
undergo and suffer due to injuries. Certain observations were
made by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of
Vijaykumar Babulal Modi vs State Of Gujarat SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION NO. 20488 of 2017 referred by HSC in the case
of Sidram (supra) which is reproduced hereunder:
“It appears that the claim under this head is to the tune of Rs.3
lac. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum under the
head ‘loss of amenities’. We are of the opinion that this head must
take into account all aspects of a normal life that have been lost
due to the injury caused. As per R.D. Hattangadi‘s case (supra),
this includes a variety of matters such as the inability to walk,
run or sit, etc. We include here too the loss of childhood pleasure
such as the ability to freely play, dance, run, etc., the loss of
ability to freely move or travel without assistance. Then, there is
the virtual impossibility of marriage as well as a complete loss of
the ability to have sex and to have and nurture children.”
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 43 of 50
(ii) In the case at hand, injured is a young man bed ridden for
life. What to talk of amenities of life, he is destined to be
dependent even for basic routine activities on others. His medical
condition is such that it is bound to have devastating impact on
all the aspect of his life. He is no longer an able bodied man who
can freely move around, travel or dance and would have to be
confined to bed. It is evident that he would not be able to live a
wholesome life and enjoy the amenities which he would have
enjoyed but for the injuries suffered by him. An amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.
32. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put
in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all
concerned:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : As Rs. 2,65,900/-
discussed above.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : As Rs. 50,000/-
discussed above.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : As Rs.50,000/-
discussed above.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.20,40,000/-
(v) Loss of income : Rs.3,60,000/-
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if NA
applicable) :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 100%
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 44 of 50
capacity in relation to disability: As
already discuss above.
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : NA
(viii) Loss of future income: Rs. 85,68,000/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Damages for pain, suffering and Rs. 10,00,000/-
trauma on account of injuries:
(ii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 2,00,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.1,25,33,900/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation after deduction Rs.1,25,33,900/-
Interest As directed
below
33. It may be noted that in the judgment of Ram Charan &
Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no.
433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022 it was noted regarding rate of
interest:
“25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for the
applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding
principles for the grant of interest. In Abati Bezbaruah Vs.
Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148, the
following was held while interpreting section 171 of the
MV Act, 1988:-
Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A. P.
Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio
has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard
to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was
awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter
of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be
just and reasonable depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and taking all relevant
factors including inflation, change of economy,
policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India fromMACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 45 of 50
time to time, how long the case is pending,
permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity
of suffering, loss of future income, loss of
enjoyment of life etc. into consideration. No rate of
interest is fixed under Section 171 of the MV Act
1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by
Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not
specifically plead for the same as it is consequential
in the eye of the law. Interest is compensation for
forbearance or detention of money and that interest
being awarded to a party only for being kept out of
the money which ought to have been paid to him.
No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of
interest be fixed to have a general application in
motor accident provision under Section 171 giving
discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other
matters, awarding of interest depends upon the
statutory provisions mercantile usage and doctrine
of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor Sec. 4-A(3) of
Workmen’s Compensation Act are applicable in the
matter of fixing are of interest in a claim under the
Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the
interest at different rates depending upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my
opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule in
awarding interest and the award of interest is solely
on the discretion of the Tribunal of the High Court
as indicated above.”
34. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, including in the
case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27
July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of
SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9% per
annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case.
35. The total compensation which shall be payable to the
claimant along with to simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of
filing of DAR till actual realization of Award
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 46 of 50
amount/compensation.
LIABILITY
36. As discussed above, R-1 driver drove the vehicle rashly
and negligently which caused the accident. R-2 owned the
offending vehicle. Accordingly, the entire liability to pay
compensation would be upon R-1 driver as well as R-2 which
had authorised and deputed R-1 to drive the vehicle on the date
of accident. Therefore, such principal award
amount/compensation will be payable by the R-1/ driver & R-2/
UPSRTC offending vehicle with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from
the date of filing of petition till actual realization. (If there is any
order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be
complied at the time of calculation of award amount).
37. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of
India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of
RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING, A/c
No. 00000042706870765 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR
code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir along with
calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner.
Insurance company shall also furnish TDS certificate, if any to
the petitioner.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO
THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
‘MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE’
(MCTAP).
38. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 47 of 50
titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor
Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) which has been made
effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018
also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one
of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank
of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in
accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi.
Release of Amount
39. Out of the total award amount, Rs. 1,10,00,000/- is kept in
form of monthly FDR of Rs. 25,000/- each. Remaining amount
shall be released in the bank account of injured near his place of
residence.
40. The following directions are also given to the bank for
compliance:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be
added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit
accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the
claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not
a joint account.
(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.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the
claimant 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 near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 48 of 50
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. The bank shall debit freeze the account of
the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of
the account of the claimant from any other branch of the
bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook
of the claimant 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 shall
produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement
before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN
THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 10.12.2018
2 Name of injured Vikash Chauhan
3 Age of the injured 27 years
4 Occupation of the Private Job.
injured
5 Income of the injured Rs. 30,000/- per month.
6 Nature injury 100% permanent physical
impairment in relation to D9
& D-10 Fracture Spine with
Paraplegia both Lower Limb
MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 49 of 50
with Bladder/Bowel
involvement.
7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization
9 Whether any permanent 100% permanent physical
disability?
impairment in relation to D9
& D-10 Fracture Spine with
Paraplegia both Lower Limb
with Bladder/Bowel
involvement.
41. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
The copy of award be sent to Ld. Secretary, DLSA and Ld.
Digitally
Concerned Criminal Court. signed by
SHELLY
SHELLY ARORA
Announced in the open court ARORA Date:
2025.01.20
on 20.01.2025 16:38:25
+0530
Shelly Arora
PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi
20.01.2025MACT No.: 513/19 Vikash Chauhan @ Harish Chauhan Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. Page No. 50 of 50
[ad_1]
Source link