Delhi District Court
Priya Mittal D/O Sh. Ravinder Kumar ... vs Vishal Sharma S/O Nand Kishor Sharma on 29 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER-MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
MAC No. 1726/16
Priya Mittal D/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar Mittal
R/o H. No.-1/4687, Balbir Nagar Extension,
Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi.
............Petitioner
Versus
1. Vishal Sharma S/o Nand Kishor Sharma
R/o 354, Gali No.8, Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi.
2. Madhu W/o Sh. Lt. Sh. Nand Kishor
R/o 354-B, Gali No.8, Jharkhandi Road,
Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi.
3. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
2Nd Floor, Building no.2, Shankar Narayana Building No.1,
MG Road, Bangalore-560001.
..........Respondents
MAC No. 1726/16 1/11
Date of institution : 04.02.2016
Date of arguments : 21.07.2017
Date of Judgment : 29.07.2017
JUDGMENT
1. SHO, PS, Jagat Puri, Delhi has filed detailed accident report. Priya Mittal gave her statement to the police that on 24.10.2015 at 7:30 pm, in front of PNB, Arjun Nagar, Delhi she was crossing the road where one motorcycle bearing no. DL- 14SD-7318 came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against her. She fell down and sustained injuries. She did not report the matter to the police as she never wanted any action against the driver. Now, she has come to the police station to report the matter regarding the accident. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. Her statement was recorded. FIR no. 683/15 PS, Jagat Puri, Delhi was recorded against respondent no.1. After usual investigation detailed accident report is filed which is treated as petition.
2. The respondent no. 1 and 2 have filed the joint reply to the effect that they have been falsely implicated as no accident has taken place with the motorcycle in question. The petitioner wants to extort money from them that is why FIR was lodged after 45 days of the accident. The driving of motorcycle in a high speed at MAC No. 1726/16 2/11 the place of accident does not arise as Metro Rail Work is going on. The vehicle is duly insured. The allegations of the petitioner are denied.
3. The respondent no. 3 has filed the reply to the effect that vehicle is insured with respondent vide policy no. 2312200986510400000 valid till 12.02.2016. There is delay of 40 days in lodging the FIR. The involvement of vehicle is doubtful. The respondent is entitled for all the defences available under section 170 MV Act. The allegations of petitioner are denied.
4. From the pleadings following issues are framed on 31.05.2016 :-
1. Whether respondent no. 1 was driving vehicle bearing no. DL-14SD-7318 on 24.10.2015 at 7.30 pm in front of PNB, Arjun Nagar, Road No.57, Delhi in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against petitioner Priya Mittal as a result petitioner sustained injuries? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so and for what amount? OPP.
3. Relief.
5. Petitioner has examined one witness. Respondents have not led any evidence.MAC No. 1726/16 3/11
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. My issuewise findings are as under:-ISSUE NO. 1
7. PW-1 Priya Mittal has filed her affidavit Ex.PW-1/A wherein she has corroborated the version as set out in the beginning while briefing the facts. Ex. PW1/6 is the DAR. During cross-
examination by respondent no. 1 and 2, she stated that road is smooth where accident had taken place. No construction work was going on near the place of incident. The offending vehicle had jumped the traffic signal. The suggestion is denied that she was using earphones at the time of accident. The bike rider also fell down. She was lifted by rickshaw pullers. Her colleagues came from the office and took her to the office. She saw the rider of the motorcycle at the time of accident. The suggestion is denied that accident has not taken place with the offending vehicle that is why FIR was lodged after 45 days. During cross- examination by insurance company, she stated that accident took place at 7:30 pm. The blood was oozing out from her mouth. She visited R K Gupta Hospital for medical aid. She was referred to a Dental surgeon. She did not file a complaint with the police as she was busy in her treatment. Her father used to visit the police station to lodge the complaint but it was not lodged on the ground that his daughter (petitioner) is fine and FIR cannot be recorded MAC No. 1726/16 4/11 after a long delay. The suggestion is denied that the accident took place due to her negligence.
8. I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The testimony of PW-1 is material in nature as she is the victim. It is clear from her testimony that on 24.10.2015 at 7:30 pm, in front of PNB, Arjun Nagar, Delhi she was crossing the road where one motorcycle bearing no. DL-14SD-7318 came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against her. She fell down and sustained injuries. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1.
9. It is clear from the reply of respondent no. 1 and 2 that respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle. A bald plea is taken in the reply that respondent no. 1 has not caused the accident. The defence is without any merits as nothing has come in her cross-examination that motorcycle being driven by respondent no. 1 did not hit PW-1. Respondent no. 1 has jumped red light. The jumping of red light itself shows that vehicle was being driven in a negligent manner. Respondent no. 1 and 2 have not led any evidence. FIR has been registered against respondent no. 1 but no complaint is filed against the police in case there is alleged false implication. Respondent no. 3 has failed to shatter PW-1 during the course of her cross-examination
10. There is delay of 46 days in lodging the FIR. The MAC No. 1726/16 5/11 explanation is furnished by PW-1 during the course of her examination. Her testimony shows that she was busy in her treatment that is why she did not lodge the FIR. Moreover, the FIR was not recorded as and when her father visited the police station. The explanation seems to be convincing. Further, there is nothing on the record that there is any false implication of the vehicle in question. The accident has taken place at a traffic signal. The number was noted down by PW-1 that is why she was able to lodge the FIR against the driver / respondent no. 1. To my mind, delay in lodging the FIR does not put any dent in the testimony of PW-1.
11. PW-1 is the victim who has given the details of the accident in his testimony. Her testimony is consistent with the version recorded in FIR. Her testimony cannot be ignored. All these fact show that accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. The issue no. 1 is decided against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 212. PW-1 has stated in her affidavit Ex.PW-1/A that she has sustained fracture right, ayle fracture (left), palesymypling and other injuries on the body. She was taken to GTB Hospital, Delhi where first aid was given. Her treatment has continued for six months. She is working as Office Assistant with R K Traders, MAC No. 1726/16 6/11 Arjun Nagar, Delhi and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. She has incurred a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on her treatment, Rs. 15,000/- each on special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. She could not attend to her duties for six months. Her dreams have been shattered. She has suffered grave mental pain and agony due to injuries sustained in the accident. Ex.PW-1/1 is the medical treatment record, Ex.PW1/2 is the bills, Ex. PW1/3 is the Educational Documents, Ex.PW1/4 is the Voter ID card, Ex. PW1/5 is the copy of Aadhar Card and Mark X is the computer generated copy of B.A. Program Part III. During cross- examination by respondent no. 3, she stated that she has graduated in December, 2015. She has sustained injuries inside the mouth. She has visited R K Gupta Hospital and thereafter referred to a Dental Surgeon. She has filed medical bills of Dr. R. K. Gupta and Dr. Himanshu which are dated 24.10.2015. She has not filed any document to show income and employment proof.
13. Heard and perused the record. It is clear from the Medical record Ex. PW1/1 that petitioner was removed to GTB Hospital on the very same day, i.e., on 24.10.2015. She has also visited Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New Delhi. The MLC shows that she was having swelling over lower border of mandible right side and occlusion deranged. She was advised to visit dental OPD. It further shows that facial asymmetric with swelling on right side of face and tenderness over right angle and left region of mandible. She was advised orif. The MLC further shows that she MAC No. 1726/16 7/11 has sustained soft tissue injury on the right leg whereas no bony injury was seen on right leg though formal report was awaited. She has taken treatment for mandible region (face). There is follow up of treatment in GTB hospital as well as with the private doctor. She has undergone pain and suffering during the period of her treatment. To my mind, he is entitled for Rs. 25,000/- on account of pain and sufferings.
14. The medical bills Ex.PW-1/2 show that she has incurred a sum of Rs. 8,370/- on her treatment. The petitioner is entitled for the said amount on account of medical expenses. There is a bill of Rs. 15,990/- on record which is issued by Medex India Pvt. Ltd. The said bill does not bear the stamp of the said firm. It does not show who has received the bill of Rs. 15,990/-. No person is examined from the said firm to prove this bill. The petitioner is not entitled for the compensation on account of this bill.
15. PW-1 stated that she was working as Office Assistant with M/s. R. K. Traders, Arjun Nagar, Delhi and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. There is no income and employment proof on record. The educational documents Ex. PW1/3 show that she has completed Secondary School Examination in 2009 and Diploma Course in early childhood care and education in 2014. Mark X is the mark-sheet of B. A. Program, 2015. Her testimony shows that she has completed graduation in December 2015, i.e., after the date of accident. The petitioner was not graduate on the date of MAC No. 1726/16 8/11 accident. In these circumstances, petitioner is entitled for minimum wages given to a matriculate worker in Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The minimum wages for matriculate worker on the day of accident were Rs. 11,154/- per month. This is taken as income of the petitioner per month.
16. The petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. It is not possible to do the work when one is under treatment. The injuries need at least one month to heal up. The petitioner has remained out of work for at least one month. The petitioner is entitled for compensation for loss of earning/work during the treatment period for a sum of Rs. 11,154/-.
17. The petitioner has visited the hospital number of times for treatment. She must have taken special diet in order to heal the wound. She is entitled for compensation towards special diet and conveyance which are assessed to Rs. 15,000/-.
18. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for the compensation as under :-
1 Compensation towards pain Rs. 25,000/- and sufferings 2 Compensation towards medical bills Rs. 8,370/- 3 Loss of earning for a period of 1 month Rs. 11,154/-MAC No. 1726/16 9/11
4 Special diet and conveyance Rs. 15,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 59,524/- LIABILITY
19. There is nothing on the record to show that there is violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. There is no statutory defence u/s 149 (2) MV Act. The insurance company shall pay the compensation in terms of the insurance policy of the vehicle to the petitioner.
RELIEF
20. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the petition of petitioner is allowed. The respondent no. 3 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.59,524/- within one month from today with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The insurance company is directed to give notice regarding deposit of said amount to the petitioner and counsel.
AWARD
21. The petition of the petitioners is allowed. The respondent no. 3 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.59,524/- within one month from today with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the DAR /petition till the date of realization. The respondent no. 3 MAC No. 1726/16 10/11 is directed to deposit the said amount including interest with Manager, UCO Bank, KKD Courts within 30 days from the date of passing of award.
22. Petitioner has been examined with respect to financial need and bank details.
23. The Manager, UCO Bank shall credit the award amount to the saving bank account of the petitioner after taking relevant documents.
24. Copy of Form IV duly filled shall be treated as part of this award.
25. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the parties concerned.
26. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open (Suresh Kumar Gupta)
court on 29.07.2017 PO-MACT/SHD/KKD
DELHI
MAC No. 1726/16 11/11