Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs Azzi on 17 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARVIND KUMAR : PRESIDING OFFICER:
MACT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
M.A.C. Petition no. 611/10
Unique Case ID No. : 02402C0544792007
Union of India
Through Deputy Commissioner of Police
Police Control Room, Delhi Police,
M.S.O. Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi ....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Azzi
S/o Sh. Latif,
R/o House No. 81, Village Sonkh,
Tehsil Noohn, Distt. Gurgaon,
Haryana
(Owner of offending vehicle TATA -407 HR-38J-0886)
2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
New Insurance Building,
87, Mahatma Gandhi Marg,
Mumbai-400001
(Insurance Company of
offending vehicle TATA - 407 HR-38J-0886) ...Respondents
Date of institution : 09.08.2007
Reserved for orders : 09.12.2011
Judgment pronounced on : 17.12.2011
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner claims the compensation of Rs. 49,080/- with cost and interest @ 24% per annum towards the damage to Government Vehicle i.e. PCR Van No. DL-ICH-2626 in the road accident, in the intervening night of 05.05.2004/06.05.2004, occurred within the jurisdiction of PS New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, involving TATA -407 bearing No. M.A.C. Petition No. 611/10 Page 1/8 HR-38J-0886.
2. The brief facts, as stated by the petitioner, are that in the intervening night of 05.05.2004 / 06.05.2004 it was informed that one tempo (Tata 407), was running from Dallupura village in a suspicious condition towards Noida T- point and two PCR Vans R-41 and R-45 from Romeo Net were chasing the tempo which was loaded with cows. The police personal signalled the tempo to stop but occupants of the Tata-407 threw stones on the police personnels. The said Tata-407 entered into South Zone Area and PCR Van of South Zone Area were alerted and were directed to close the road. As per the directions given by C.P.C.R., P.C.R. Van E-77, No. DL-1CH-2626 was checking the traffic near S-35, Panchsheel Enclave, and one tempo Tata-407,bearing No. HR-38J-0886 came at a high speed and hit the back side of PCR van, at Abdul Nasir Road,resulting into total damage to the back portion of the PCR, side glasses, and mudguard. The staff of E-77, apprehended two persons namely Sh. Kallu and Sh. Ajjee and handed over to SI Ramanand of Police Station Hauz Khas. An FIR No. 162/04 , under section 353/186/279/411/34 IPC and 11 of Cruelty to Animal Act was registered. It is stated that mechanical inspection of government vehicle was carried out and following damages were found :-
● Rear bumper damaged, needed replacement ● Rear bumper cover(both side) broken, needed replacement. ● Rear tail light assembly( both side) broken, needed replacement.
● Back door damaged, needed repair/replacement. ● Back door upper panel with beading broken, needed replacement.
● Back roof panel assembly damaged, needed replacement. ● Right side rear panel damaged, needed replacement.M.A.C. Petition No. 611/10 Page 2/8
● Right side rear fender liner damaged, needed replacement. ● Running board damaged, needed replacement. ● Right side front door disaligned, needed alsigned. ● Rear right side moulding joint piece broken, needed replace. ● Right side body glass both with frame, beeding damaged, needed replacement.
● Right side rear tyre rim damaged, needed replacement. ● After repairing the dented portion of the vehicle would be repainted in matching colour.
3. The respondent No. 1 filed written statement stating that vehicle of the respondent was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. It is stated that respondent was not responsible for the accident as alleged by the petitioner and respondent was not liable to pay even a single penny.
4. The insurance company was initially impleaded as respondent No. 2 but as the vehicle was not insured the respondent No. 2 was deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 31.03.2011. The cover note placed on record shows that above said vehicle was insured for the period from 21.01.2003 to 20.01.2004 while accident had taken place in the intervening night of 05.05.2004/06.05.2004.
5. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the vehicle( PCR Van, E-77) bearing No. DLICH-2626 was damaged in the accident occurred in the intervening night of 05.05.2004 /
06.05.2004, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (TATA-407) No. HR-38J-0886 being driven by the respondent No. 1?(OPP)
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from M.A.C. Petition No. 611/10 Page 3/8 whom? ( OPP)
3. Relief.
6. The petitioner examined ASI Chand Ram as PW-1, SI Jeevan Ram as PW-2, HC Sunil Kumar as PW-3 and SI Vinod Kumar as PW-4. On the other hand respondent did not examine any witness.
7. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. My findings on the issues are as under :
ISSUE NO. 1:-
8. PW-1 Sh. Chand Ram, ASI, deposed that in the intervening night of 05.05.2004 / 06.05.2004 it was informed that one tempo (Tata
407), was running from Dallupura village in a suspicious condition towards Noida T- point. Two PCR Vans R-41 and R-45 from Romeo Net were chasing the tempo which was loaded with cows. The police personal signalled the tempo to stop but occupants of the Tata-407 threw stones on the police personals. The said Tata-407 entered into South Zone Area and PCR Van of South Zone Area were alerted and were directed to close the road. As per the directions given by C.P.C.R., P.C.R. Van E-77, No. DL-1CH-2626 was checking the traffic near S-35, Panchsheel Enclave, and one tempo Tata-407,bearing No. HR-38J-0886 came at a high speed and hit the back side of PCR van, at Abdul Nasir Road,resulting into total damage to the back portion of the PCR, side glasses, and mudguard. The staff of E-77, apprehended two persons namely Sh. Kallu and Sh. Ajjee and handed over to SI Ramanand of Police Station Hauz Khas. An FIR No. 162/04 , under section 353/186/279/411/34 IPC and 11 of Cruelty to Animal Act was registered.
M.A.C. Petition No. 611/10 Page 4/89. PW-2, SI Jeevan Ram deposed that on 05.05.2004/06.05.2004 he was on duty in PCR van( Eagle -77) and he received information from the control room that a Tata-407, bearing No. HR-26J-0886 was going towards Noida, T-point from Dallupura village in suspicious condition and two PCR van were chasing the said Tata-407 and as per the directions from control room( Eagle -1) he was checking the traffic near S-35, Panchsheel Enclave and a Tata-407, bearing No. HR-38J-0886 came at a very high speed and hit the back side of PCR at Abdul Nasir Road, resulting into the total damage of the back portion of the said PCR and side glasses as well as mudguard. Two persons namely Kallu and Ajjee were apprehended and were handed over to SI Ramanand.
10. Sh. Sunil Kumar, PW-3 deposed almost same facts as deposed by PW-1.
11. I have gone through the material on record. The FIR and testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 clearly show that accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle No. HR-38J-0886. There is nothing on record to dispel the inference that the vehicle bearing No. DL-1CH-2626 was damaged in a road accident occurred on the intervening night of 05.05.2004 / 06.05.2004 because of rash and negligent driving of Vehicle bearing No. HR-38J-0886 being driven by the respondent No. 1. There is no evidence in rebuttal. The issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 212. PW-1, ASI Chand Ram, deposed that mechanical inspection was conducted on 11.08.2004 of the vehicle bearing No. DL-1CH-2626 at M.A.C. Petition No. 611/10 Page 5/8 M. T. Workshop/ PCR,OPL, Rajpur Road, Delhi and following damages were found:-
● Rear bumper damaged, needed replacement ● Rear bumper cover(both side) broken, needed replacement. ● Rear tail light assembly( both side) broken, needed replacement.
● Back door damaged, needed repair/replacement. ● Back door upper panel with beading broken, needed replacement.
● Back roof panel assembly damaged, needed replacement. ● Right side rear panel damaged, needed replacement. ● Right side rear fender liner damaged, needed replacement. ● Running board damaged, needed replacement. ● Right side front door disaligned, needed alsigned. ● Rear right side moulding joint piece broken, needed replace. ● Right side body glass both with frame, beeding damaged, needed replacement.
● Right side rear tyre rim damaged, needed replacement. After repairing the dented portion of the vehicle would be repainted in matching colour.
13. PW-3 Sh. (HC) Sunil Kumar, deposed almost same facts as deposed by PW-1, ASI Chand Ram. PW-3 Sh. (HC) Sunil Kumar further deposed that a sum of Rs. 49,080/- were incurred on government vehicle and the respondents were liable to pay the said amount. PW-3 Sh. (HC) Sunil Kumar exhibited the original bill of DD motors as Ex. PW-3/1 and payment vouchers form as Ex. PW-3/2.
14. PW-4, SI Vinod Kumar exhibited the photocopy of the bill No. 44308 as Ex. PW-4/2 and stated that original bill was submitted in treasury M.A.C. Petition No. 611/10 Page 6/8 and the same was destroyed. PW-4 , SI Vinod Kumar exhibited the report regarding weeding out of the record as Ex. PW-4/1.
15. I have gone through the material on record. It is clear from the testimony of the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that damage was caused to the PCR van No. DL-1CH-2626. The bill No. 000045, dated 26.4.2005, Ex. PW-3/1, for a sum of Rs. 9485/-. The bill invoice No. GAT/44308/05-06, dated 30.09.2005 , Ex. PW-4/2 , issued by Gupta Auto Traders shows that goods i.e. Rear Roof Hard Top, MG King Panel and Back Door Upper MG King Panel, were purchased for a sum of Rs. 30,249/-.
16. The payment vouchers, collectively exhibited as Ex. PW-3/2 shows that Rs. 44,080/- were incurred on the replacement of the damaged parts and repairing of the vehicles. The parts which were replaced were not the new parts and value of the parts replaced would be less than the new parts. Therefore in my opinion a sum of Rs. 38,000/- will be the just compensation.
LIABILITY
17. The respondent No. 1 being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
RELIEF
18. While granting the relief to petitioner, I am also to award the interest @ 7.5% p.a on the above said amount of Rs. 38,000/- from the date of filing of petition till realization of the amount. Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.
M.A.C. Petition No. 611/10 Page 7/819. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 38,000/-. The respondent is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 38,000/-. The respondent shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner.
20. Compensation amount may be deposited within one month from today, in the court.
21. The awarded amount shall be released to petitioners with immediate effect.
22. A copy of the award be given free of cost to the parties concerned. List on 17.02.2012 for compliance.
Announced in the open ( Arvind Kumar )
court on 17.12.2011 Presiding Officer: MACT
Karkardooma Court
Delhi.
M.A.C. Petition No. 611/10 Page 8/8