Delhi District CourtSh. Rashim Gupta S/O Sh. Mahesh Kumar ... vs Sh. Love Sehgal S/O Sh. Satish Sehgal on 16 April, 2014IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI : PRESIDING 
    OFFICER MACT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS (EAST) : 
                        DELHI.

M.A.C. Petition No  : 225/11 
Unique Case ID No. : 02402C0196542011                       

   Sh. Rashim Gupta S/o Sh. Mahesh Kumar Gupta
   R/o H.No.344/2, Gali No.14, Bhola Nath Nagar,
   Shahdara, Delhi­110032.                           ..... Petitioner

                                VERSUS

1. Sh. Love Sehgal S/o Sh. Satish Sehgal 
   R/o H.No.5/10, Geeta Colony, Delhi.                ..... Driver/Owner

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
   At I, 124, Cannaught Circus, Level­IV,
   Tower II, Jeevan Bharti Bldg., New Delhi            ..... Insurance Co.

                                                              ..... RespondentsPresented on          : 19.05.2011
Reserved for Order on : 09.04.2014
Date of Award         : 16.04.2014

                               A W A R D1. The petitioner has filed the present claim undersection 166&140of Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.20.00M.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                             Page No. 1/15(Rs. Twenty Lacs  only) for the injuries suffered by him in the 

        roadside accident dated 19.04.2011.2. The case of the petitioner is that on 19.04.2011, he was riding 

        his   motorcycle   bearing   no.DL­7SAP­9929   and   going   towards 

        ITO via Pushta Road.  As he reached near red light in front of 

        Police   Station   Shakarpur,   a   car   make   'Maruti   Swift'   bearing 

        registration No.DL­7CD­6789 being driven by respondent no.1, 

        rashly   and   negligently,   hit   the   motorcycle.     The   petitioner 

        suffered grievous injuries and was taken to LBS Hospital.   A 

        case FIR no.188/11 U/s 279/338IPCwas registered at Police 

        Station Shakarpur.   It is stated that petitioner was 27 years of 

        age   and   was   working   as   Company   Secretary   at   M/s.   ATS 

        Service Pvt. Ltd. and earning Rs.46,000/­ per month.3. The respondent no.1 filed the written statement, wherein it is 

        stated   that   the  accident  happened due to negligent  driving of 

        injured himself who while driving so, hit the right door of the 

        car;   that   respondent   no.1   was   having   valid   Driving   Licence 

        bearing   no.07042005338075   valid   upto   4.4.2025;   that   the 

        vehicle no.DL­7CD­6789 is duly insured with respondent no.2; 

        that respondent no.1 is not liable to pay compensation.4. The respondent no. 2/Insurance company filed written statementM.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                                Page No. 2/15in which it is admitted that car make Maruti Swift bearing no. 

        DL­7CD­6789 was insured with respondent no.2; that the driver 

        was not holding a valid licence and thus committed breach of 

        terms   and   conditions   of   policy.   Respondent   no.2   has   denied 

        almost all other averments of the petition.5. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed :­1) Whether the petitioner has suffered injuries in  
                road side accident on 19.04.2011 involving vehicle  
                No.   DL­7CD­6789   being   driven   in   a   rash   and  
                negligent manner by respondent no. 1?2)   To   what   amount   of   compensation,   if   any,   the  
                petitioner is entitled to and from whom?3) Relief.6. The  petitioner   has examined  himself  as  PW­1  and has  relied 

        upon the documents as Ex.PW1/1 to PW1/11.   Petitioner also 

        examined PW­2 Mohd. Fasiullah from Max Hospital, who has 

        proved medical record as Ex.PW2/1.   PW­3 Sh. Pratap Singh, 

        Asstt. Manager, HR ATS Services Pvt. Ltd. has proved Leave 

        Record   as   Ex.PW3/1,   Resignation   Letter   as   Ex.PW3/2,   Pay 

        Slips   w.e.f.   April   2011   to   Sept.   2011   as   Ex.PW3/3   and   his 

        Discharge  Summary  and medical  record submitted for  taking 

        leave as Ex.PW3/4. PW­4 Dr. Harish Mansukhani, CMO, LBSM.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                                   Page No. 3/15Hospital has proved disability certificate as Ex.PW4/1.7. It   is   pertinent   to   mention   that   respondents   have   not   led   any 

        evidence despite opportunity.8. I have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record 

        carefully. My findings on the issues are as under:­

        ISSUE NO. 1 :Whether the petitioner has suffered injuries in road side  
        accident   on   19.04.2011   involving   vehicle   No.  
        DL­7CD­6789   being   driven   in   a   rash   and   negligent  
        manner by respondent no. 1?9. Burden   of   proving   this   issue   is   on   the   Petitioner.     For 

        succeeding in a claim petition filed underSection 166of the 

        M.V. Act, it is for the petitioner to prove that the vehicle which 

        caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by 

        its driver. This is sine qua non for getting the relief.  Petitioner 

        stated that on 19.04.2011, he was riding his motorcycle bearing 

        no. DL­7SAP­9929 and going towards ITO.  As he reached near 

        red light in front of Police Station Shakarpur, a car make 'Maruti 

        Swift'   bearing   registration   No.DL­7CD­6789   being   driven   by 

        respondent no.1, rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle.  As 

        a  result,  petitioner fell down and sustained injuries.   He was 

        taken to LBS Hospital.M.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                                   Page No. 4/1510.The   respondents   did   not   lead   any   evidence.     Police   after 

        investigation   has   filed   chargesheet   against   respondent   no.1 

        underSections   279/337/338of   IPC   which   is   prima­facie 

        suggestive   of   negligence   of   respondent   no.1   in   driving   the 

        vehicle at the time of accident.InRanu Bala Paul & Ors. v.  

        Bani Chakraborty & Ors.1999 ACJ634, the Hon'ble Gawhati 

        High Court has observed as under :"In   deciding   a   matter   tribunal   should   bear   in   mind   the  
             caution   struck   by   the   Apex   Court   that   a   claim   before   the  
             Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case  
             nor   a   civil   case.     In   a   criminal   case   in   order   to   have  
             conviction,   the   matter   is   to   be   proved   beyond   reasonable  
             doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the  
             basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the  
             Motor   Accidents   Claims   Tribunal   the   standard   of   proof   is  
             much below than what is required in a criminal case as well  
             as in a civil case.  No doubt before the tribunal there must be  
             some material on the basis of which the tribunal can arrive or  
             decide   things   necessary   to   be   decided   for   awarding  
             compensation. But the tribunal is not expected to take or to  
             adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case.  After all, it is  
             a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of  
             the society."11.In the case of  National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vijay Laxmi &  

        Ors. MAC APP. No. 375/06 dated 05.07.12, the Hon'ble High 

        Court of Delhi has held as under :"8.InBimla   Devi  and  Ors.  v.  Himachal   Road  TransportM.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                                             Page No. 5/15Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, the Supreme Court  
               held   that   in   a   petition   underSection   166of   the   Act,   the  
               Claimants   were   merely   to   establish   their   case   on   the  
               touchstone of preponderance of probability and holistic view  
               is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition under  
               theMotor Vehicles Act. Para 15 of the report is extracted  
               hereunder :"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly  
               taken a holistic view of the matter.   It was to be borne in  
               mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular  
               bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by  
               the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their  
               case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.  The  
               standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have  
               been applied."12.The report inBimla Devi(Supra) was relied on by the Hon'ble 

        Supreme Court in its latest judgments inParmeshwari v. Amir  

        Chand(2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir, (2011) 3  

        SCC 646."13.In the case ofNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa  

        Rana & Ors.: 2009 ACJ 287, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 

        has held that :"The last contention of the appellant insurance company is  
               that   the   respondents   -   claimants   should   have   proved  
               negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the  
               counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble  
               Apex Court inOriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal  
               (Supra).  On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes  
               clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certifiedM.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                                                 Page No. 6/15copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955  
               of 2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle;(ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of  
               police   and  issue   of   chargesheet   underSections   279/304A,  
               Indian Penal Code against the driver; (iii) certified copy of  
               F.I.R., wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged;and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of  
               offending   vehicle   and   vehicle   of   the   deceased.   These  
               documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that  
               the   driver   was   negligent.     Proceedings   under   theMotor  
               Vehicles Actare not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and  
               hence strict rules of evidence are not requires to be followed  
               in this regard.  Hence, this contention of the counsel for the  
               appellant also falls face down.  There is ample evidence on  
               record to prove negligence on the part of the driver".14.This case was noticed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the 

        case   titled   asCholamandalam   M.S.   General   Insurance   Co.  

        Ltd.   v.   Kamlesh:   2009   (3)   AD   (Delhi)   310  where   adverse 

        inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle 

        had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence 

        taken in the written statement. It was noted that 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 

        the case.  The respondent no.1 failed to place an iota of evidence 

        in   this   regard.     The   issue   thus   stands   decided   in   favour   of 

        petitioner   holding   that   the   accident   happened   as   a   result   ofM.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                                        Page No. 7/15negligent driving by respondent no.1.ISSUE NO.2 :To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioner  
        is entitled to?15.PW­1, petitioner stated that on 19.04.2011, he was admitted to 

        LBS Hospital but due to critical condition, was shifted to Max 

        Balaji Hospital.  He was operated upon on 19.04.2011 and was 

        discharged on 25.04.2011.   He states that he sustained serious 

        injuries   of   Blow   Out   Fracture   -   Right   Orbital   Floor   with 

        Fracture Maxilla with Nasal Bone and doctors advised him for 

        regular follow up.16.I   have   gone   through   the   judgments   cited   by   Ld.   counsel   for 

        petitioner.   Hon'ble Supreme Court enumerated the principles 

        for granting the compensation payable to road traffic accident 

        victims.    In   the   case   of  Raj   Kumar   v.   Ajay   Kumar   &   An.,  

        MANU/SC/1018/2010, Civil Appeal No. 8981/2010 decided on  

        18.10.2010, following principles were laid down by the Hon'ble 

        Supreme Court for determining compensation payable to road 

        traffic accident victims:­i)   The   compensation   payable   to   the   claimant   who   is   a  
                 victim of road accident 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 makeM.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                                           Page No. 8/15good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as  
                 money   can   do   so,   in   a   fair,   reasonable   and   equatable  
                 manner.ii) Compensation payable in injury cases is payable under  
                 two heads. They are pecuniary damages (special damages)  
                 and   non   pecuniary   damages.   Pecuniary   damages   have  
                 three   sub   heads   which   are   :  (i)  expenses   relating   to  
                 treatment,   hospitalization,   medicines,   transportation,  
                 nourishing   food   and   miscellaneous   expenditure.  (ii)  (a)  
                 Loss of earning (and other gains) which the injured would  
                 have made had he not been injured, comprising of loss of  
                 earning   during   the   period   of   treatment   and   (b)   loss   of  
                 future   earnings   on   account   of   permanent   disability  (iii) 
                 Future   medical   expenses.   Non­pecuniary   damages  
                 (General Damage) are (iv) damages for pain, suffering and  
                 trauma as a consequence of injuries  (v)  loss of amenities  
                 and/or   loss   of   prospects   of   marriage)   and  (vi)  loss   of  
                 expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).iii)   In   routine   personal   injury   cases   compensation   is  
                 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 is granted under any of the heads (ii) (b),(iii) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account  
                 of   permanent   disability,   future   medical   expenses,   loss   of  
                 amenities (and/or loss of prospectus of marriage) and loss  
                 of expectation of life.17.The petitioner has suffered grievous injuries.  He has proved the 

        Disability Certificate Ex.PW4/1 as per which, he suffered 5% 

        permanent   disability   in   relation   to   his   face.     As   regards   the 

        quantum of compensation, petitioner has to be compensated forM.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                                            Page No. 9/15the actual expenses incurred by him and for the loss of income 

        of him being rendered disabled. Besides non pecuniary losses 

        are to be assessed on the basis of facts proved.18.The petitioner remained admitted in hospital uptil 22.04.2011 

        and   suffered   serious   injuries.     Therefore,   for  Pain   and 

        Suffering,   he   is   awarded   a   compensation   of   Rs.45,000/­ 

        towards.19.Petitioner has placed on record the medical bills of Rs.24,181/­. 

        He is awarded an amount of Rs.24,181/­ towards medical bills.20.Petitioner examined Sh. Pratap Singh, Asstt. Manager (HR) as 

        PW­3 who has proved the Leave Record, Resignation Letter and 

        Pay Slips as Ex.PW3/1 to PW3/3 respectively.   Petitioner was 

        working   as  Company  Secretary  with M/s. ATS  Services Pvt. 

        Ltd. and record shows that his gross salary was increased to Rs.

        5,28,528/­ per annum w.e.f. 01.07.2010.  He was drawing salary 

        of   Rs.44,044/­   per   month   and   after   deducing   conveyance 

        allowance of Rs.800/­ becomes as 43,444/­ per month.21.Relying upon the judgment ofRajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh  

        & Ors., 2013 (6) SC 563, the petitioner has become entitled for 

        addition of 50% increase while assessing the future prospectus, 

        which   comes   as   Rs.43,444.00   +   Rs.21,722.00   (50%)   =   Rs.M.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                             Page No. 10/1565,166.00. The annual income comes at Rs.65,166.00 x 12 = Rs.

        7,81,992.00.22.The petitioner was around 28 years at the time of accident.  He 

        suffered permanent disability of 5% which is not gong to affect 

        his working capacity.   Thus, on applying the multiplier of 17, 

        the Future Loss of income comes to Rs.7,81,992.00 x 17 x 2.5 / 

        100 = Rs.3,32,347.00.23.With   the   kind   of   injuries   suffered   by   him,   it   can   be   safely 

        assumed that he would have remained without work at least for 

        a period of two months.  Counsel for petitioner has claimed Rs.

        45,000/­   towards   this   head.     Accordingly,   he   is   awarded   Rs.

        45,000/­  for two months for Loss of Wages.24.The petitioner is also awarded a compensation of Rs.7,500/­ for 

        Special Diet and Rs.7,500/­ for Conveyance Charges.25.With the kind of injuries, the petitioner would have needed help 

        of an attendant.  It is well settled that a victim of an accident has 

        to be compensated in terms of money even if gratuitous services 

        are   rendered   by   a   family   member.   In  Delhi   Transport  

        Corporation   and   Anr.   v.   Lalita,   AIR   1981   Delhi   558,   the 

        Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that there cannot be any 

        deduction if domestic help is obtained from a family member.M.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                                    Page No. 11/15The Hon'ble High Court has observed as under :­
             "...........A wrong doer cannot take advantage of this 'domestic  
             element'. If the mother renders service to her, instead of a  
             nurse,   it   is   right   and   just   that   she   should   recover  
             compensation for the value of the services that the mother has  
             rendered to her. Mother's services were necessitated by the  
             wrong doing and the injured should be compensated for it.  
             (Cunnigharn v. Harrison 3 All E.R. 463).   The services of a  
             wife and mother are worth more than those of a house­keeper  
             because she is in constant attendance and does many more  
             things than a house­keeper. (Regan v. Williamson (1976) 2 All  
             E.R. 241)."26.This judgment was again relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court 

        of Delhi in the case of Narayan Bahadur v. Sumeet Gupta and  

        Anr., MAC APP.No.762/11 dated 04.07.12.27.Therefore,   on   a   lump   sum   basis,   the   petitioner   is   awarded   a 

        compensation   of   Rs.15,000/­   for   two   months   as  Attendant's 

        Charges.28.Keeping   in   view   the   facts   and   circumstances,   I   consider   the 

        following amount to be the just compensation to the petitioner:­


1      Towards future loss of income                              Rs.3,32,347.00
2      Towards pain and sufferings                                Rs.   45,000.00
3      Towards servant/attendant for 2 months                     Rs.   15,000.00
4      Towards conveyance and special diet (without bills) Rs.   15,000.00M.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                                       Page No. 12/155      Towards medical bills                                 Rs.    24,181.00
6      Towards loss of earning for two months                Rs.    45,000.00
7      Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life       Rs.    30,000.00
       Total =                                               Rs. 5,32,028.00

                 Therefore, in my opinion the petitioner is entitled to Rs.

        5,32,028/­ which shall be the just compensation to petitioner. 

        LIABILITY :29.Since Insurance company has admitted the policy as on date of 

        accident,   respondent   no.2   is   liable   to   pay   the   compensation 

        amount.   There   being   no   evidence   of   violation   of   the   policy 

        condition and there being no evidence to support the permitted 

        defence U/s. 149(2) of theM.V. Act, I am unable to grant the 

        recovery rights. Therefore, insurance company shall make good 

        the compensation in terms of the accepted policy.A W A R D30.The   petition   stands   allowed.   The   respondent   No.2/Insurance 

        company   is   liable   to   pay   the   compensation   of  Rs.5,32,028/­. 

        However,   the   respondent   No.2/insurance   company   having 

        admitted the policy, is hereby directed to pay a compensation of 

        Rs.5,32,028/­, within one month. The respondent no.2/insurance 

        company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% per annum (except forM.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                                 Page No. 13/15the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation 

        amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner.31.The   award   amount   alongwith   interest   be   deposited   by 

        respondent   no.2/Insurance   Company,   within   30   days   in   the 

        court.In case, even after passage of 90 days from today, the 

        Insurance   Company   fails   to   deposit   this   compensation   with 

        proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment 

        of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case ofNew India  

        Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, 

        this   compensation   shall   be   recovered   by   attaching   the   bank 

        account of the Insurance Company with a cost of Rs.10,000/­.32.Out of total award amount, let an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ be 

        released in favour of the claimant forthwith.  Rest of the amount 

        shall be deposited in three FDRs of equal amount for a period 

        from one to three years in any Nationalized Bank of the choice 

        of  claimant  with directions to release monthly interest  in her 

        favour, if so desire.33.The   FDRs   shall   not   be   encashed   before   their   maturity   date 

        without leave of this court.34.The   respondent   no.2   is   directed   to   give   notice   regarding   the 

        deposit of the amount to the petitioner at the address mentionedM.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                                  Page No. 14/15in the memo of parties and will also sent copy of notice to the 

        counsel   for   petitioner   at   the   address   mentioned   in   the 

        Vakalatnama.35.List for reporting compliance on 31.05.2014.  The respondent 

        no.2 is directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the 

        award amount, notice of the deposit and calculation of interest 

        on the next date of hearing.Announced in the open court
Dated : 16th April, 2014               (MS. RAVINDER BEDI)
                               PRERSIDING OFFICER MACT (EAST) 
                                 KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.M.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                            Page No. 15/15MACT NO.225/1116.04.2014 
Present : Ms. Pooja Goel, counsel for petitioner.Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2.Vide   separate   order,   an   Award   is   passed   in   favour   of 
petitioner and against respondent no.2, as per which the respondent 
No.2/Insurance company having admitted policy is liable to pay the 
compensation of Rs.5,32,028/­, within one month. The respondent no.
2/insurance   company   shall   also   pay   interest   @   7.5%   per   annum 
(except   for   the   period   not   specifically   allowed)   on   the   total 
compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the 
petitioner.The   award   amount   alongwith   interest   be   deposited   by 
respondent no.2/Insurance Company, within 30 days in the court.In 
case,   even   after   passage   of   90   days   from   today,   the   Insurance 
Company   fails   to   deposit   this   compensation   with   proportionate 
interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High 
Court of Delhi in the case ofNew India Assurance Company Limited  
Vs.   Kashmiri   Lal,   2007   ACJ   688,   this   compensation   shall   be 
recovered by attaching the bank account of the Insurance Company 
with a cost of Rs.10,000/­.Out of total award amount, let an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ 
be released in favour of the claimant forthwith.   Rest of the amount 
shall be deposited in three FDRs of equal amount for a period from 
one to three years in any Nationalized Bank of the choice of claimant 
with directions to release monthly interest in her favour, if so desire.The FDRs shall not be encashed before their maturity date 
without leave of this court.The respondent no.2 is directed to give notice regarding the 
deposit of the amount to the petitioner at the address mentioned in theM.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                                Page No. 16/15memo of parties and will also sent copy of notice to the counsel for 
petitioner at the address mentioned in the Vakalatnama.List   for   reporting   compliance   on   31.05.2014.  The 
respondent no.2 is directed to place on record the proof of deposit of 
the award amount, notice of the deposit and calculation of interest on 
the next date of hearing.(MS. RAVINDER BEDI)
                              P.O. MACT (EAST)/KKD./DELHI/16.04.2014M.A.C. Petition No.225/11                                        Page No. 17/15