Delhi District Court
Sh Raj Kumar Singh vs Jai Singh S/O Sh Virender Singh on 2 June, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. A.S. YADAV, PO-MACT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
PETITION NO.:- 375/05
DATE OF INSTITUTION:- 04.10.2005
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh Raj Kumar Singh
S/o late Sh Hukum Singh
R/o H.No. 2412, Tilak Street,
Pahar Ganj, Delhi. --- Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Singh S/o Sh Virender Singh
R/o R-64, Khirki Ext., Malviya Nagar
New Delhi.
2. Virender Singh
R/o R-64, Khirki Ext., Malviya Nagar
New Delhi & Defence Colony (tundla)
Sector - C, Village Kaluhari,
Ambala, Haryana.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. --- Respondents
Arguments heard on 31.05.2007 Date of decision: 02.06.2007 AWARD This claim petition is filed by Sh Raj Kumar Singh in respect of the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 26.1.2005.
2. In brief the case of the petitioner is that on 26.1.2005 at 2 about 7 PM, the petitioner came out of Orthonova Hospital for going to his house, after seeing his wife, who was admitted there. The petitioner started crossing the road towards the bus stand IIT and while crossing the road he has almost reached near the bus stand and at that time he was hit by a motorcycle bearing no. HR 01 Q1995 with its headlight off. The accident was caused due to the negligence of the motorcyclist. The motorcyclist also fell down. Petitioner was taken to Orthonova Hospital. He suffered intercondylar fracture left tibia with deep lacerated wound over postero lateral aspect left knee with Grade III A compound fracture shaft right tibia with diabetes mellitus. He was discharged from Orthonova Hospital on 31.1.2005. He underwent surgery there. The discharge summary Ex. P1 shows that following things were done:
Open reduction and internal fixation intercondylar fracture tibia left with closure of wound with Arthroscopy.
Wound debridement with myocutaneous flap with O.r. I.F right tibia with interlocking nail (8 x 40 cm) with bone grafting.
He has claimed a compensation of Rs 2675297/-.
3. R-1 is driver, R-2 is owner and R-3 is insurer. R-1 and R-2 were proceeded Ex Parte. R-3 in the written statement has not disputed the fact that offending vehicle was duly insured with it at the 3 time of accident.
4. NEGLIGENCE In order to prove negligence petitioner testified that on 26.1.2005 at about 7 PM, the petitioner came out of Orthonova Hospital for going to his house, after seeing his wife, who was admitted there. The petitioner started crossing the road towards the bus stand IIT and while crossing the road he has almost reached near the bus stand and at that time he was hit by a motorcycle bearing no. HR 01 Q1995 with its headlight off. R-1 never entered the witness box to testify that accident was not caused due to his negligence. It is proved on record that a charge sheet was filed against R-1 for committing an offence u/s 279/338 IPC. It is proved on record that accident was caused due to the negligence of R-1.
5. COMPENSATION It is well settled law that in case of injuries the damages are to be assessed as pecuniary damages as well as non pecuniary damages.
6. So far as the pecuniary damages are concerned petitioner in his cross examination admitted that in Orthonova Hospital his total bill was for a sum of Rs 108111/- and out of that a sum of Rs 88719/- was paid directly under Central Government Health Scheme, so the balance amount left is 19392/-. Apart from that he has proved 4 other bills which are for a sum of Rs 23804/- approximately. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs 43196/- towards medicines etc.
7. Petitioner testified that for six months he took special diet which cost him Rs 100/- per day and he visited hospital 14 - 15 times and on every visit he spent a sum of Rs 1400/-.
8. Taking into consideration that petitioner was admitted in hospital on 26.1.2005 and was discharged on 29.1.2005 and he underwent interlocking, bone grafting etc., and also that he was admtited again on 12.7.2005 for removal nails and was discharged on 13.7.2005, I award him a sum of Rs 5000/- for conveyance and Rs 5000/- for special diet.
9. Petitioner testified that his son was alloted a PCO in the handicap category and he used to assist his son in running that PCO but on account of the injureis sustained by him he is not able to assist him as a result his son is suffering loss of Rs 5000/- per month. There is nothing to prove that his son has suffered any loss. The petitioner is a pensioner. He was 71 years of age at the time of accident. He has not suffered any loss in his income as he is getting the pension regularly.
5
10. Petitioner suffered 3 per cent permanent disability on account of the fracture suffered by him. Again he has not suffered any financial loss on account of this permanent disability as he is getting the pension regularly. Even otherwise the disability is insignificant. I award him a lump sum amount of Rs 10000/- for this permanent disability.
11. So far as the non pecuniary damages are concerned, taking into consideration the nature of injuries suffered by him and that certain implants are still in place in his leg, I award petitioner a sum of Rs 30000/- for pain and suffering.
12. Hence, in all the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 93196/-. He is also entitled to 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e 04.10.2005 till realisation. Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount.
13. Since the vehicle in question is insured with R-3 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., R-3 is directed to deposit the award amount within one month and in case of delay future interest will be deducted form the salary of the employee of respondent no. 3, who, will be responsible for the delay.
Order dictated and announced (A.S. Yadav) in the open court on 02.06.2007 Judge MACT/New Delhi