Delhi District Court
Permanent R/O vs Shri Kulvinder Singh on 27 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJLI GOEL, PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL2, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No.489/14
Date of Institution:16.07.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
Farman
S/o Mohd. Irfan Khan
R/o H.No. D2, Power House
Opp. Ambedkar Market
Near Taxi Stand
Vasant Kunj
New Delhi 110070.
Permanent R/o
H.No.303, Jatavan - 2
Bhuwan Bahadur Nagar
District Bulandshahr
UP ...Petitioner
Versus
1.Shri Kulvinder Singh
S/o Shri Hardit Singh
R/o H.No.B109, BBlock
Janta Colony, Raghuvir Nagar
New Delhi.
2. Smt. Suman Juneja
W/o Shri Kulvinder Singh
R/o H.No. B109, BBlock
Janta Colony, Raghuvir Nagar
Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 1 of 23
Farman v Kulvinder Singh
New Delhi. ...Respondents
Final Arguments heard : 30.01.2015 Award reserved for : 27.02.2015 Date of Award : 27.02.2015 AWARD
1. Vide this judgmentcumaward, I proceed to decide the claim petition u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as amended uptodate (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of compensation arising out of a road accident.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 23.03.2014, at about 1.15 hrs. the petitioner/injured namely Farman was coming from Shiv Vihar J. J. Colony to his residence on a cycle along with his father Mohd. Irfan Khan and he was running the cycle as per the rules of traffic on proper way and correct side of the road, and very carefully. During the said process when the injured/petitioner reached at the side of Dwarka 10C Bus stop before some distance of bus stop, Dwarka New Delhi then all of a sudden one vehicle bearing No.DL4CND9491 (car) came in high speed, which was driven by the driver/respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and in contravention of rules of traffic and hit the cycle of the petitioner/ injured with very great force. It is averred that due to the forceful impact the injured/petitioner fell down on the road and received multiple grievous injuries After that the petitioner was Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 2 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh removed to DDU Hospital where MLC was prepared by the doctors of the concerned hospital. It is averred that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident in a rash and negligent manner, and due to his act some innocent persons became victims of the same. It is stated that in respect of the accident FIR No.177/14 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt. It is averred that due to the accident the injured/petitioner received multiple grievous injuries, severe injuries, wounds, swelling and pain on different parts of the body and the petitioner and his family members spent a huge amount on his treatment and the petitioner had received fracture in left occipital bone head injuries etc and he was still under treatment. It is averred that Rs.50,000/ had been spent on the treatment. It is averred that due to the accident the injured/petitioner and his family members suffered from mental pain and agony, loss of income, loss of works, loss of enjoyment, loss of social activities, loss of general or special damages, etc.
3. It is averred that at the time of the accident the petitioner was 23 years old and doing his own business of repairing pressure cookers etc on cycle and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month but due to the accident he was facing great financial problems and other losses etc. It is averred that at the time of the accident the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and the respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 3 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh amount to the petitioner jointly or severally. It is prayed that an amount of Rs. 10 lacs be awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
4. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 averring that the petitioner has not come with clean hands before the court and has suppressed the material true facts. It is averred that there is no cause of action in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents No.1 and 2. It is averred that the respondents No.1 and 2 are not liable to pay any compensation since the offending vehicle alleged to have been involved in the accident was not responsible for the accident and the accident had not been caused due to the fault of the respondent No.1. It is averred that the petition is false, frivolous, vexatious and malafide. The averments made in the claim petition were denied. It is averred that no accident had taken place from the vehicle of the respondents No.1 and 2 and a false case had been registered against the respondents No.1 and 2. It is averred that the FIR was registered on false and fabricated statement. It is averred that the petitioner has claimed excessive, exorbitant and huge amount of compensation which may not be awarded to him.
5. Initially Detailed Accident Report was filed by the IO on 3.6.2014 and thereafter the claim petition was filed on 16.7.2014. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 16.10.2014: Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 4 of 23
Farman v Kulvinder Singh
1. Whether the injured sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 23.03.2014 at about 1.15 hours at Dwarka to IOC Bus Stop side some distance before bus stop caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL4CND9491 driven by respondent no.1 and owned by respondent no.2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
6. The petitioner Shri Farman appeared in the witness box as PW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. He stated that he was diagnosed by the doctors i.e. Fracture Lt. Occipital Bone, Head Injuries and other multiple grievous injuries as per the MLC/Discharge summary. He stated that he was admitted in hospital from 23.03.2014 to 27.03.2014 and he remained under treatment for about 5 months. He stated that due to the accident he could do his work for about 5 months. He stated that he had spent Rs.30,000/ on medical treatment and Rs.20,000/ on special diet, Rs.15,000/ on conveyance, Rs.10,000/ on attendant and future expenses of Rs.20,000/. He stated that due to the said accident he had suffered great mental pain and agony, suffering from financial problem, loss of pecuniary and non pecuniary, loss of social activities and his future had become in darkness. He stated that due to the accident he had become a permanently disabled person and he was unable to do his daily routine work. He stated that he had not received his disability certificate. He stated that police recorded his statement. Medical bills, discharge slip, OPD card and Xray report, ration card and election I card are Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 5 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4. PE was closed on 26.11.2014. RE was closed on 22.12.2014.
7. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent No.1 and perused the record. The petitioner was also examined on 26.11.2014 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court on 11.1.2013 in MACA No.792/2006 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ranjit Pandey and Ors.
8. My findings on the specific issues are as under:
Issue No. 1
9. As the petition has been filed U/s 166 M.V Act it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that he sustained injuries in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle it has been held in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pushpa Rana & Another 2009 Accident Claims Journal 287 as follows:
"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 in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V. Meena Variyal (supra). On perusal Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 6 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of offending vehicle (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code against the driver;
(iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of deceased.
These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required 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 part of the driver."
It is established law that in a claim petition under Motor Vehicle Act, the standard of proof to establish rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle is not at par with the criminal case where such rashness and negligence is required to be proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. In Kaushnamma Begum and others v. New India Assurance Company Limited, it was inter alia held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injury or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 7 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh
10. The case of the petitioner is that on 23.03.2014, at about 1.15 hrs. he was coming from Shiv Vihar J. J. Colony to his residence on his cycle along with his father Mohd. Irfan Khan and Farman was running the cycle as per the rules of traffic on proper way and correct side of the road, and very carefully. During the said process when the injured/petitioner reached at the side of Dwarka 10C Bus stop before some distance of bus stop, Dwarka New Delhi then all of a sudden one vehicle bearing No.DL4CND9491 (car) came in high speed, which was driven by the driver/respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and in contravention of rules of traffic and hit the cycle of the petitioner/ injured with very great force. It was averred that due to the forceful impact the injured/petitioner fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. After that the petitioner was removed to DDU Hospital where MLC was prepared by the doctors of the concerned hospital. It was averred that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident in a rash and negligent manner, and due to his act some innocent persons became victims of the same. It was stated that in respect of the accident FIR No.177/14 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt. The petitioner in para 2 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect.
11. The IO had filed the Detailed Accident Report on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner containing the criminal record consisting of copy of charge sheet; copy of tehrir, copy of FIR; copy of site plan; copy of arrest Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 8 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh memo, copy of seizure memos; copy of mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle car bearing No.DL4CND9491, copy of verification report of the DL of the respondent No.1, copy of verification report of the RC of the offending vehicle, copy of notice under Section 133 MV Act, copy of MLCs, copy of order on the application for release of the offending vehicle on superdari along with the copy of superdarinama, copy of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., copies of photographs and copies of duly verified bills. As per the FIR No.177/14 under sections 279/337 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt the case was registered on the basis of the complaint of HC Sanjay Kumar (on DD). As per the charge sheet the respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under sections 279/338 IPC and Sections 146/196 MV Act.
12. The respondents No.1 and 2 had filed the written statement averring that the offending vehicle alleged to have been involved in the accident was not responsible for the accident and the accident had not been caused due to the fault of the respondent No.1. It was averred that no accident had taken place from the vehicle of the respondents No.1 and 2 and a false case had been registered against the respondents No.1 and 2. It was averred that the FIR was registered on false and fabricated statement. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 PW1 stated that on 23.03.2014 at about 12.00 mid night he was going from Uttam Nagar to Mehrauli. He was coming from his bua's house i.e. at Uttam Nagar along with his father and going to Kishangarh by bicycle. He did not remember Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 9 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh whether he had informed the police about going to Kishangarh by bicycle. He denied the suggestion that he was going to Kishan Garh by bicycle and he had informed the police. He stated that the police had recorded his statement at Uttam Nagar, Shiv Vihar. He did not remember the date and time when his statement was recorded. He stated that the police had never called him in PS Delhi Cantt or Uttam Nagar. He stated that when he reached under the flyover a car came from back side and hit him from the back. Thereafter, the driver of the offending car had fled away from the spot. He stated that he and his father became unconscious after few minutes of the accident. He stated that the police came at the spot and took them to DDU Hospital. He did not remember the time when the police came at the spot. He did not remember the time when the police took them to the hospital. He also did not remember the speed of the offending vehicle and its make. He stated that at the time of the accident there were many vehicles passing from the accidental place. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place with another vehicle and he had deliberately involved the respondents No.1 and 2 in the case. He denied the suggestion that the police had lodged false FIR No.177/14 PS Delhi Cantt.
13. PW1 thus did not remember whether he had informed the police about going to Kishangarh by bicycle. He was crossexamined regarding the recording of his statement by the police and he stated that the police had recorded his statement at Uttam Nagar, Shiv Vihar though he did not remember the date and time when his statement was recorded. He stated that Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 10 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh when he reached under the flyover a car came from back side and hit him from the back. Thereafter, the driver of the offending car had fled away from the spot. As per the tehrir though the offending vehicle was found at the spot, the respondent No.1 was not there. PW1 stated that police came at the spot and took them to DDU Hospital. He did not remember the speed of the offending vehicle and its make but that would also not be possible as according to the case of the petitioner the car had hit the cycle from behind. In fact a suggestion was also put to him that the accident took place with another vehicle and he had deliberately involved the respondents No.1 and 2 in the case which he denied but even the offending vehicle was found at the spot of the accident. While the respondents No.1 and 2 had contended that they were not responsible for the accident, they have not even stated how according to them the accident took place and how the offending vehicle came to be there at the spot of the accident. The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle also shows extensive damage to it on the front side. The respondents No.1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle have not led any evidence to dispute the version put forth by the petitioner or in the criminal record. The criminal record is also there which shows that the respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 279/338 IPC and Sections 146/196 MV Act. In Basant Kaur and others v. Chattar Pal Singh and others 2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB) it was observed that registration of criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle was enough to record a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 11 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh the accident. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondents to disprove the particulars of the accident or the involvement of vehicle No.DL 4CND 9491. In view of the testimony of PW1 and the documents on record which have remained unrebutted, the negligence of the respondent No.1 has been prima facie proved.
14. It was stated that due to the forceful impact the injured/petitioner fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries After that the petitioner was removed to DDU Hospital where MLC was prepared by the doctors of the concerned hospital. The MLC of the injured/petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by him. Thus it stands established that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the alleged accident. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Issue No.2
15. Since issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioner he would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Act. The law is well settled that the compensation has to be awarded in personal injury cases under the following heads: (1) for loss of earnings during the period of treatment (2) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (3) expenses suffered by the injured on treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food etc. In addition, the injured is further entitled Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 12 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh to nonpecuniary damages/general damages which include (1) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries and (2) loss of expectation of life.
MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT
16. The case of the petitioner is that due to the forceful impact of the accident on 23.3.2014 he fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. After that the petitioner was removed to DDU Hospital where MLC was prepared by the doctors of the concerned hospital. It was averred that due to the accident the injured/petitioner received multiple grievous injuries, severe injuries, wounds, swelling and pain on different parts of the body and the petitioner and his family members spent a huge amount on his treatment and the petitioner had received fracture in left occipital bone head injuries etc and he was still under treatment. It was averred that Rs.50,000/ had been spent on the treatment. It was averred that due to the accident the injured/petitioner and his family members suffered from mental pain and agony, loss of income, loss of works, loss of enjoyment, loss of social activities, loss of general or special damages, etc. The petitioner in paras 2 to 6 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. He stated that he was diagnosed by the doctors i.e. Fracture Lt. Occipital Bone, Head Injuries and other multiple grievous injuries as per the MLC/Discharge summary. He stated that he was admitted in hospital from 23.03.2014 to 27.03.2014 and he Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 13 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh remained under treatment for about 5 months. He stated that due to the accident he could do his work for about 5 months. He stated that he had spent Rs.30,000/ on medical treatment and Rs.20,000/ on special diet, Rs.15,000/ on conveyance, Rs.10,000/ on attendant and future expenses of Rs.20,000/. He stated that due to the said accident he had suffered great mental pain and agony, suffering from financial problem, loss of pecuniary and non pecuniary, loss of social activities and his future had become in darkness. He stated that due to the accident he had become a permanently disabled person and he was unable to do his daily routine work. He stated that he had not received his disability certificate. Medical bills, discharge slip, OPD card and Xray report, ration card and election I card are Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the nature of injuries was opined to be grievous. The documents placed on record also show that the petitioner had sustained fracture in left occipital bone. Further the documents show that he remained admitted in hospital from 23.3.2014 to 27.3.2014. Thus the injuries were grievous in nature. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability due to the accident. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 PW1 stated that he remained at the hospital for 45 days after the accident. He admitted that he had no other medical documents except those which he had filed along with his affidavit. He denied the suggestion that he had spent Rs.30,000/ on medical expenses, Rs.20,000/ on special diet, Rs. 10,000/ on conveyance, Rs.20,000/ on attendant and future expenses. Thus Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 14 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh PW1 stated that he remained at the hospital for 45 days after the accident and even the documents placed on record show the same. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner had sustained injuries and underwent treatment for the same. The petitioner had stated that he had spent Rs.30,000/ on medical expenses. The petitioner had filed bills for an amount of Rs.6,306/ approximately. Looking to the nature of the injuries the petitioner is held entitled to the amount of the bills. The petitioner would incur some expenses even subsequently. Accordingly an amount of Rs.7,000/ is awarded towards medical treatment and expenses including the amount of the bills. PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
17. It has been held in Divisional Controller, K. S. R. T. C v Mahadeva Shetty and another AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4172 as under:
13."The damages for vehicular accidents are in the nature of compensation in money for loss of any kind caused to any person. In case of personal injury the position is different from loss of property. In the later case there is possibility of repair or restoration. But in the case of personal injury, the possibility of repair or restoration is practically nonexistent. In Parry V. Cleaver (1969 1 All. E. R. 555) Lord Morris stated as follows:
"To compensate in money for pain and for the physical consequences is invariably difficult, but...... no other process can be devised than that of making monetary assessment."Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 15 of 23
Farman v Kulvinder Singh The case of the petitioner is that due to the forceful impact of the accident on 23.3.2014 he fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. After that the petitioner was removed to DDU Hospital where MLC was prepared by the doctors of the concerned hospital. It was averred that due to the accident the injured/petitioner received multiple grievous injuries, severe injuries, wounds, swelling and pain on different parts of the body and he had received fracture in left occipital bone head injuries etc and he was still under treatment. It was averred that due to the accident the injured/petitioner and his family members suffered from mental pain and agony, loss of income, loss of works, loss of enjoyment, loss of social activities, loss of general or special damages, etc. The petitioner stated that he was diagnosed by the doctors i.e. Fracture Lt. Occipital Bone, Head Injuries and other multiple grievous injuries as per the MLC/Discharge summary. He stated that he was admitted in hospital from 23.03.2014 to 27.03.2014 and he remained under treatment for about 5 months. He stated that due to the accident he could do his work for about 5 months. He stated that due to the said accident he had suffered great mental pain and agony, suffering from financial problem, loss of pecuniary and non pecuniary, loss of social activities and his future had become in darkness. He stated that due to the accident he had become a permanently disabled person and he was unable to do his daily routine work. He stated that he had not received his disability certificate. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the nature of injuries was opined to be grievous. The documents placed on record also show that Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 16 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh the petitioner had sustained fracture in left occipital bone. Further the documents show that he remained admitted in hospital from 23.3.2014 to 27.3.2014. Thus the injuries were grievous in nature. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability due to the accident. Looking at the nature of injuries and extent of treatment and that the accident pertains to the year 2014, the petitioner is awarded Rs.20,000/ (Rs.Twenty Thousand only) for pain and suffering.
18. The petitioner was stated to be 23 years old and it was so stated in the claim petition and PW1 had also deposed to that effect. Copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner is Ex.PW1/6 as per which the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.1.1996. As such he would have been more than 18 years old on the date of the accident i.e. 23.3.2014. Notice can be taken of the fact that on account of the injuries sustained by him the petitioner may not have been able to perform his day to day duties towards his family and on account of the injuries suffered by him the petitioner may not have been able to enjoy the amenities of life. In the circumstances the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/ (Rs.Ten Thousand only) for loss of amenities of life. The petitioner cannot however be held to be entitled to any amount towards loss of expectation of life or towards disfiguration.
Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 17 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
19. The petitioner in para 4 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had stated that he had spent Rs.15,000/ on conveyance. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 PW1 denied the suggestion that he had spent Rs.30,000/ on medical expenses, Rs.20,000/ on special diet, Rs. 10,000/ on conveyance, Rs.20,000/ on attendant and future expenses. Although the petitioner has not filed any document on record in order to prove the expenditure on conveyance however, notice can be taken of the fact that after the accident the petitioner was taken to DDU Hospital and that after discharge from hospital he might have hired the services of private conveyance as he would not have been able to drive of his own or to use public conveyance. In the circumstances a sum of Rs.3,000/ (Rs.Three Thousand only) would be just and proper towards conveyance charges.
20. The petitioner in para 4 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had stated that he had spent Rs.20,000/ on special diet. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 PW1 denied the suggestion that he had spent Rs.30,000/ on medical expenses, Rs.20,000/ on special diet, Rs. 10,000/ on conveyance, Rs.20,000/ on attendant and future expenses. Although the petitioner has not proved that he was advised special diet but looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner notice can be taken of the fact that the petitioner might have taken diet rich in protein, vitamins and Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 18 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh minerals for speedier recovery. In the circumstances the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/ (Rs.Three Thousand only) for special diet.
21. The petitioner in para 4 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had stated that he had spent Rs.10,000/ on attendant. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 PW1 denied the suggestion that he had spent Rs.30,000/ on medical expenses, Rs.20,000/ on special diet, Rs. 10,000/ on conveyance, Rs.20,000/ on attendant and future expenses. Although the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that he incurred any expenses towards attendant charges, however looking to the nature of injuries the petitioner would have incurred some expenditure on attendant charges and a sum of Rs.6,000/ is awarded towards attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
22. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of the accident he was 23 years old and doing his own business of repairing pressure cookers etc on cycle and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month but due to the accident he was facing great financial problems and other losses etc. The petitioner in para 3 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. He stated that due to the accident he could do his work for about 5 months. He stated that due to the accident he became permanent disabled person and he was unable to do his Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 19 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh daily routine work. However the petitioner has not placed anything on record to show what he was doing or how much amount he was earning. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 PW1 stated that he was repairing gas stoves (pheri) and earning Rs.300/ to 400/ per day. He admitted that he had not filed any documentary proof regarding his salary. However nothing has been produced on record to show the same. During examination by the Tribunal the petitioner had stated that he is 23 years old at present. He stated that at the time of the accident he was doing work of repairing gas stoves and earning Rs.300/ to Rs.400/ per day. He stated that at present he was not doing anything. He stated that he had studied upto 4th class.
23. The petitioner had stated that he could not do his work for 5 months. However he has not produced any document to show that he remained on bed rest for any particular period and there is nothing to show that he was advised bed rest for any particular period or that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident he was unable to work or to show the period for which he was not able to work. During examination by the Tribunal the petitioner had stated that at present he was not doing anything but there is nothing to show that the same was on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. In the absence of any specific advice of the doctor notice can be taken of the fact that the petitioner may not have been able to perform his avocation for some period on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Considering the facts and Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 20 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh circumstances of the case the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 20,000/ consolidated on account of loss of income.
24. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner had suffered any disability on account of the injuries. The petitioner has not proved that he acquired any disability on account of the accident or that he is likely to suffer future loss of income on account of the injuries sustained in the accident and that the injuries would reduce his efficiency to work and thereby he would suffer loss of future income. Accordingly the petitioner cannot be held entitled to any amount on account of loss of future prospects.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
Medicines and Medical treatment Rs.7,000/
Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/
Loss of Amenities of life Rs.10,000/
Conveyance Rs.3,000/
Special Diet Rs.3,000/
Attendant charges Rs.6,000/
Loss of Income Rs.20,000/
TOTAL Rs.69,000/
Thus the total compensation would be Rs.69,000/.
Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 21 of 23
Farman v Kulvinder Singh
RELIEF
25. The petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.69,000/ (Rs.Sixty Nine Thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization including, interim award, if any already passed against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the award amount directly in court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft within 30 days of the passing of the award failing which she would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay. The petitioner shall file his complete address as well as address of his counsel for sending the notice of deposit of the award amount. APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
26. The respondent No.1 is the driver and the respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Thus the respondents No.1 and 2 are held jointly and severally liable. Hence, the respondent No.2 being the owner in respect of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 being the owner is directed to deposit the award amount in the court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft within 30 days of the passing of the award with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization failing which she would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 22 of 23 Farman v Kulvinder Singh
27. Nazir to report in case the cheque is not deposited within 30 days of the passing of the award/judgment. Nazir is directed to note the particulars of the award amount in the register today itself. The respondent No.2 shall deposit the award amount along with interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant with a copy to his counsel and the compliance report shall be filed in the court along with proof of deposit of award amount, the notice of deposit and the calculation of interest on 28.05.2015.
Attested copy of the award be given to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
on this 27th day of February, 2015 (GEETANJLI GOEL)
PO: MACT2
New Delhi
Suit No. 489/14 Page No. 23 of 23
Farman v Kulvinder Singh