Delhi District Court
Ms Usha Devi vs Sh Surender Kumar on 30 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF MS. REENA SINGH NAG, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE-02 NORTH-EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.61/09
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0311812009
Ms Usha Devi
w/o Sikander Singh
r/o E-446/487, New Seema Puri
Delhi. ......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh Surender Kumar
s/o Sh Layak Ram
r/o 361 A-Block, Ist Pushta
Sonia Vihar
Delhi. .....Driver
2. Rohtash
r/o H No.329, Kondli Village
Delhi. .....Owner
Date of institution : 27.10.2009
Arguments heard on : 27.11.2010
Date of decision : 30.11.2010
FIR No.299/09
P.S.: Seema Puri
AWARD
1. Present claim petition has been filed by claimant for claiming
compensation in sum of Rs.5 lacs on account of the grievous injuries
sustained by her in an accident which took place on 27.08.09 at about 21.15
hours when she was going to Dilsahd Garden from her house and when she
reached in front of R-Pocket Chowk near Pummy Sweets, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi, when the offending vehicle i.e maruti car bearing no.DL 2C AC 7409
came being driven by its driver from Dilshad Garden side at a high speed in a
MACT No. 61/09 Page 1 of 6
rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner thereby, causing grievous
injuries. She was removed to GTB Hospital where she was treated. It is
claimed that she spent appox. Rs.50,000/- on her treatment which is still on
going.
2. In response to the notice of petition to respondent no.1, driver and
respondent no.2, owner, in their joint WS the factum of respondent no.1
being the driver and respondent no.2 being owner of the vehicle was not
denied however, involvement of the vehicle in the accident and rashness and
negligence was denied and rashness and negligence was attributed to the
petitioner herself.
3. There was no insurance of the offending vehicle.
4. From the pleadings on record, following issues were framed on
18.09.2010:-
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in an accident which took
place on 27.08.09 at 21.15 hours at R-Pocket Chowk near Pummy
Sweets, Dilshad Garden, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle no.DL-2C-AC-7509 by respondent no.1 vehicle
owned by respondent no.2?OPP
2. If so, how much compensation petitioner is entitled to and from
whom?OPP
3. Relief.
5. In support of his case, petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and
tendered her affidavit as Ex.PW1/A wherein she supported the averments as
made in the petition. She referred to the medical bills which she collectively
exhibited as Ex.PW1/B running in 11 pages. Respondent examined the
driver Surender as R1W1 who inter-alia testified that on the fateful day i.e on
27.08.09 at 9.15 p.m, he was proceeding towards his house from Seema Puri
and when he reached at T point near H Pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, he
took a turn towards Pummy Sweet Corner at a very moderate speed at which
MACT No. 61/09 Page 2 of 6
time a rickshaw puller came from wrong side at a fast speed and took a sharp
turn due to his negligence, his rickshaw was struck against his vehicle (car).
So, he attributed rashness and negligence to the rickshaw puller and also
claimed that rickshaw puller was under the influence of liquor.
6. At the stage of arguments, counsel for petitioner also placed on record
photocopies of the treatment documents of the petitioner from Jankidas Kapur
Memorial Hospital for the period from 09.11.2010 and certain bills to the
extent of worth Rs.2,533.51. Counsel for petitioner has claimed that petitioner
has yet to undergo further treatment of her denture for which she has to
undergo expenses however, except above documents no other documents
have been produced before the court on the expenses incurred or to be
incurred in treatment.
7. I have heard the arguments and gone through the case file and my
issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:-
8. This is the petition U/s 166 of M.V. Act as such petitioner is required to
establish the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.
The accident is not denied by the respondent. Respondent no.1 being driver
and respondent no.2 being owner is also not denied. The negligence has
been attributed to the petitioner in para no.27 of the WS meaning thereby,
that involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident is admitted.
Moreover, the copy of FIR placed on record, mechanical inspection of the
vehicle, the MLCs of the injured persons and testimony of R1W1 also
confirms the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. The name of the
driver as Surender is mentioned in the FIR and rashness and negligence has
been attributed to him.
9. Every motorist is expected to drive the motor in a controlled manner so
MACT No. 61/09 Page 3 of 6
as to avoid any collision with any vehicle or object coming in his way.
Respondent has examined himself in his defence and stated that he was
driving the vehicle at a moderate speed when the rickshaw puller came from
wrong side at a very fast speed and took a sharp turn as a result, the accident
took place. Since in the criminal case, the offence was compounded u/s
337/338 IPC so, it is quite obvious that u/s 279 IPC accused must have
pleaded guilty as such, he cannot blow hot and cold and at this juncture
states that he was not rash or negligent in his driving when he has drawn the
benefit of compounding in the criminal case and wriggled out from the
criminal consequences by paying the compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the
rickshaw puller and Rs.7,000/- to the other injured Usha. As such, rashness
and negligence is established in this case which caused consequent injuries
to the victim and hence, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondent no.1.
ISSUE NO.2:-
10. As issue no.1 is decided in fafour of the petitioner, she is entitled to the
compensation under the following head:-
Loss of income:-
In her affidavit, petitioner has claimed that she was housewife at the
time of accident as such, the income of the petitioner is to be construed as at
par with the unskilled labour under the Minimum Wages Act at the time of the
accident and in view of this, her income is taken as Rs.3,934/-(Rs.4,000/-
rounded off). She sustained injuries on her denture which is grievous injury
and she must have been put to discomfort for at least three months and
hence, is awarded Rs.12,000/- for the same.
Pain and sufferings:-
It being the grievous injuries, the petitioner must have suffered
MACT No. 61/09 Page 4 of 6
physically and mentally through the pain and agony and her household work
must has been affected and she is awarded a lump sum of Rs.35,000/- on
account of pain and sufferings.
Medical Expenses:-
Petitioner could place on record the medical bills worth Rs.2,533.51
(Rs.2,600/- rounded off). She took treatment from GTB Hospital which is
government hospital where from treatment is admitted. She also took
treatment from Jankidas Kapur Memorial Hospital. She is awarded
Rs.10,000/- in lump sum as it is common knowledge that even in government
hospital, patients are required to spend from their own pocket on accessories,
implants and medicines which are not available there.
Special Diet:-
For the injuries sustained by the petitioner, for early recovery she must
have taken nutritious diet so, she is awarded Rs.5,000/- on that count.
Conveyance:-
The petitioner must have incurred expenses on her conveyance for her
treatment. Hence, Rs.5,000/- is awarded to her for the same.
As regards the future treatment, petitioner has not produced the doctor
concerned to show the estimates of future expenses so, she is not awarded
any compensation on that count.
Petitioners is entitled to the amount as under :-
1.Loss of income Rs.12,000/-
2.Pain & Sufferings Rs.35,000/-
4. Medical Expenses Rs.10,000/-
5. Conveyance Rs. 5,000/-
6. Special Diet Rs. 5,000/-
-----------------
Total : Rs.67,000/-
MACT No. 61/09 Page 5 of 6
Relief:-
11. Petitioner is awarded Rs.67,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% from the date of the filing of petition i.e 27.10.2009 till notice to the petitioner of deposit of the awarded amount in terms of Order 21 CPC Rule 1. At the outset, the liability shall be discharged by respondent No. 2 within one month of receipt/despatch of award whichever is earlier.
12. Award is passed accordingly. Attested copies of award be furnished to the parties. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (REENA SINGH NAG) TODAY i.e ON 30/11/2010 Additional District Judge-02/NE Karkardooma Courts, Delhi MACT No. 61/09 Page 6 of 6