Delhi District Court
Anuradha Sharma vs . Sukhvir Singh on 17 October, 2014
Anuradha Sharma Vs. Sukhvir Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH. K S MOHI : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition no. : 270/13
FIR No. : 393/13, PS : Dr. Ambedkar Nagar
Smt. Anuradha Sharma
W/o Sh. Mahavir Sharma
R/o 98, Near Yadav Chapal,
Khanpur, New Delhi ......... Injured
..... Claimant
Versus
1. Sukhvir Singh
S/o Sh. Dharamvir Singh
R/o 68, Tajpur Pahari,
Badarpur, New Delhi ........... Driver
2. Lalita Prasad
S/o Sh. Indu Dutt
R/o A68, Tajpur Pahari,
Budh Vihar Colony, Badarpur,
New Delhi .......... Owner
3. Sonu Jacob
S/o Sh. Jacob Jacob John
GCMMF Ltd. V. Bhattian Road Outside
Jalandhar Octroi, Ludhiana,
Punjab .......... Regd. Owner
4. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Delhi .......... Insurer
..... Respondents
Petition No. : 270/13, FIR No. : 393/13, PS : Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 1 of 12
Anuradha Sharma Vs. Sukhvir Singh
Date of Institution : 04.10.2013
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 17.10.2014
Date of pronouncement : 17.10.2014
J U D G M E N T :
1. A Detailed Accident Report has been filed by the SHO of the Police Station Dr. Ambedkar Nagar for the injuries sustained by Anuradha Sharma in a road accident on 20.08.2013 at 9.00 AM at MB Road, Khanpur in front of Payal Jewellers on the road from Badarpur to Khanpur, New Delhi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.08.2013 at about 9.00 AM the claimant was crossing the road at M.B. Road Khanpur in front of Goyal Jewellers, Badarpur to Khanpur Road, New Delhi, in the meantime, all of a sudden a motorcycle bearing no. PB 10 AS 4865 being driven by Sukhveer in a rash and negligent manner came from Badarpur side and hit her. Due to the impact, she fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries in her left leg, left hand, head and other injuries on all over her body. She was taken to JPN Trauma Center, AIIMS. A case vide FIR no. 393/13 at the police station Dr. Ambedkar Nagar. The claimant was a housewife. It is stated that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and it was insured with respondent no.3.
Petition No. : 270/13, FIR No. : 393/13, PS : Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 2 of 12 Anuradha Sharma Vs. Sukhvir Singh
3. Notice of the DAR was given to all the respondents. Respondent no.1 and 2 did not file any reply and their defence was struck of. Respondent no.3 filed the legal offer of Rs. 33,000/ plus medical bills but it was not accepted by the injured.
4. Following issues were framed vide order dated 29.10.2013 :
1. What amount of compensation, the injured/claimant is entitled to?
2. Relief.
5. To substantiate her case the claimant examined herself as PW1. She tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6. Respondents did not examine any witness.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Ganesh Tripathi Ld. counsel for the injured/claimant and Sh. Md. Raghib Ld. counsel for the insurance company.
7. In the instant case only one issue of compensation has been framed.
However, while passing the award the Tribunal has to see the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, I shall first decide the issue whether the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
Petition No. : 270/13, FIR No. : 393/13, PS : Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 3 of 12 Anuradha Sharma Vs. Sukhvir Singh
8. It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and negligent driving. To prove rash and negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
9. PW1 has stated that on 20.08.2013 at about 9.00 AM she was crossing the road the MB Road Khanpur, in front of Goyal Jewellers, Badarpur to Khanpur Road, New Delhi, then all of a sudden a motorcycle bearing no. PB 10 AS 4865 which was being driven by its driver Sukhveer in a rash and negligent manner came from Badarpur side and hit him. Due to the impact, she fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries in her left leg, left hand, head and all over her body. She was taken to JPN Trauma Center, AIIMS where the doctors has declared grievous injuries in her left leg, left hand, head and other injuries on all over her body. She stated that the vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 Sukhveer, owned by respondent no.2 and Petition No. : 270/13, FIR No. : 393/13, PS : Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 4 of 12 Anuradha Sharma Vs. Sukhvir Singh insured with respondent no.3. In crossexamination she denied that the accident took place due to her sole negligence while crossing the road without zebra crossing. She also denied that the accident did not take place due to the negligence of driver of the motorcycle bearing no. PB 10 AS 4865. Perusal of DAR shows that the case was registered on the statement of the claimant herself. On the MLC and discharge summary history of road traffic accident has been mentioned. Charge sheet was filed against the respondent no.1.
From the testimony of PW1 coupled with the documents filed on record, it is established that Anuradha Sharma sustained injuries in a road accident on 20.08.13 at about 9.00 AM at M B Road, Khanpur, in front of Goyal Jewellers, Badarpur to Khanpur Road, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. PB 10 AS 4865 by respondent no.1. Documents filed on record would show that the vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and it was insured with respondent no.3. I S S U E No. 1
10. The claimant has claimed compensation of for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. It is true that when a person is injured in a road accident, he is entitled to the compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.
Petition No. : 270/13, FIR No. : 393/13, PS : Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 5 of 12 Anuradha Sharma Vs. Sukhvir Singh
11. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R. D. Hattangadi V/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 that : "Broadly speaking, while fixing the 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 as nonpecuniary 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) 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."
Let me assess the compensation which the claimant is entitled to under different heads.
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
12. PW1 after the accident was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center where her MLC was prepared. As per the discharge summary she was diagnosed with Fracture Dislocation Dip Joint Left Thumb with Fracture Both Bone Leg left. Her under LA suturing and aseptic dressing was done. She was discharged Petition No. : 270/13, FIR No. : 393/13, PS : Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 6 of 12 Anuradha Sharma Vs. Sukhvir Singh on the same day. She was again admitted on 05.09.2013 and discharged on 10.09.2013. She was operated. Closed reduction and internal fixation 1L nail lt., close reduction with slab lt. thumb was done. In the instant case the claimant has filed medical bills of Rs. 18,383/. I therefore, award Rs. 18,400/ to the claimant towards medical expenses. PAIN & SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
13. The claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident. She remained hospitalised. She was operated. Due to the injuries, she suffered lot of pain, agony and mental torture. Keeping in view the injuries he sustained and the treatment she underwent, I award Rs. 30,000/ to the claimant towards Pain and Sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
14. PW1 has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. She was advised special diet for early recovery. In crossexamination she denied that she was not advised by the doctor to take high protein/nutritious diet. She visited the hospital as an OPD patient. She must have taken the help of attendant for her daily routine. Keeping in view all these facts, I award Rs. 18,000/ to the claimant towards special diet and attendant charges.
Petition No. : 270/13, FIR No. : 393/13, PS : Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 7 of 12 Anuradha Sharma Vs. Sukhvir Singh LOSS OF INCOME :
15. PW1 has stated that at the time of accident she was a housewife. She was 38 years of age. She was hale and healthy before the accident. She could not do her household work for more than four months. The computation of loss of injury for housewife is to be calculated in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled "Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manmeet Singh, 2012 ACJ 721". Hon'ble High Court in para 34 has passed guidelines to calculate the loss of dependency in case of death of housewife.
"34. To sum up, the loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife shall be :
(i) Minimum salary of a graduate where she is a graduate.
(ii) Minimum salary of a matriculate where she is matriculate.
(iii) Minimum salary of a nonmatriculate in other cases.
(iv) There will be an addition of 25% in the assumed income in (i), (ii) and
(iii) where the age of the homemaker is upto 40 years; the increase will be restricted to 15% where her age is above 40 years but less than 50 years;
there will not be any addition in the assumed salary where the age is more than 50 years.
(v) When the deceased homemaker is above 55 years but less than 60 years; there will be deduction of 25% and when the deceased homemaker is above 60 years there will be deduction of 50% in the assumed income as the Petition No. : 270/13, FIR No. : 393/13, PS : Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 8 of 12 Anuradha Sharma Vs. Sukhvir Singh services rendered decrease substantially. Normally, the value of gratuitous services rendered will be NIL (unless there is evidence to the contrary) when the homemaker is above 65 years.
(vi) If a housewife dies issueless, the contribution towards the gratuitous services is much less, as there are greater chances of the husband's re marriage. In such cases, the loss of dependency shall be 50% of the income as per the qualification stated in (i), (ii) and (iii) and addition and deduction thereon as per (iv) and (v) above.
(vii) There shall not be any deduction towards the personal and living expenses.
(viii) As an attempt has been made to compensate the loss of dependency, only a notional sum which be upto Rs. 25,000/ (on present scale of the money value) towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/ towards loss of consortium, if the husband is alive, may be awarded.
(ix) Since a homemaker is not working and thus not earning, no amount should be awarded towards loss of estate.
16. In the present case also the injured is a housewife and does not have any permanent income but she had been rendering gratuitous services to her family. One has to admit that in the long run, the services rendered by a woman in the household sustain a supply of labour to the economy and keep the human societies by weaving the social fabric and keeping it in good Petition No. : 270/13, FIR No. : 393/13, PS : Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 9 of 12 Anuradha Sharma Vs. Sukhvir Singh repair. In the present case the injuries were such that she might have remained bed ridden for four months. Taking a period of four months she remained bed ridden on account of injuries and wages of a nonmatriculate as on the date of accident as Rs. 8,528/ per month, the loss of income is calculated as 4 x 8,528 = 34,112/ which is rounded off to Rs. 34,200/. I therefore, award Rs. 34,200/ to the claimant towards loss of income.
17. The total compensation awarded to the petitioner is assessed as under :
Medical Expenses : Rs. 18,400/
Pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life : Rs. 30,000/
Special diet and Attendant Charges : Rs. 18,000/
Loss of Income : Rs. 34,200/
=============
TOTAL : Rs. 1,00,600/
=============
L I A B I L I T Y
18. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 so, primary liability to compensate the claimant remains with that of respondent no. 1. Since the respondent no.3 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle, so, he becomes vicariously liable to compensate the claimant. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no. 4, therefore, respondent no. 4 becomes contractually liable to compensate the claimant for the above mentioned amount.
In the instant case no evidence has been brought by the Insurance Petition No. : 270/13, FIR No. : 393/13, PS : Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 10 of 12 Anuradha Sharma Vs. Sukhvir Singh Company to show that there was any breach of insurance policy by the Respondent no. 3 or the Respondent no. 1 was not having Driving License. Thus, I am of the view that Respondent no. 4 is liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
19. Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondent no.4.
R E L I E F
20. In view of my findings, I award a sum of Rs. 1,00,600/ (Rs. One Lakh Six Hundred only) to the claimant as compensation alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
21. Respondent no.4 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the claimant directly in the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch within 30 days from today failing which it shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
22. Respondent no.4 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
23. Respondent no.4 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the Petition No. : 270/13, FIR No. : 393/13, PS : Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 11 of 12 Anuradha Sharma Vs. Sukhvir Singh cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant in whose favour the award has been passed.
24. The insurance company shall intimate the claimant about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
25. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the parties for necessary compliance.
26. The case is now fixed for compliance by the insurance company for 17.11.2014.
Announced in the Open Court
on 17th Day of October, 2014 (K S MOHI)
Presiding Officer : MACT
South District : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 17.10.2014
Petition No. : 270/13, FIR No. : 393/13, PS : Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 12 of 12