Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Deepak Sood vs Mohammad Farukh on 22 March, 2025

                   IN THE COURT OF MAYURI SINGH
   PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
              EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS
                               DELHI
In the matter of :
MACP No. 426/19
Deepak Sood Vs. Mohd. Farukh & Anr.

In the matter of :-
Deepak Sood
S/o- Sh. Asha Ram
R/o H. No. 10/39, Trilok Puri,
Delhi-110091.
                                                               .... Petitioner.
             Versus

1. Mohd. Farukh (Driver)
S/o Mohd. Yakub
R/o Near Nursery Gaurav Market,
Khushal Park, Ram Park road,
Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.

2.Pooja Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Surender Pal Singh
R/o B 113, Swasthya Vihar, Preet Vihar,
Delhi.                                                        ...... Respondents.

             Date of Institution           : 01.04.2019
             Date of arguments             : 10.02.2015 & 11.03.2025.
             Date of Judgment              : 22.03.2025

                                     AWAR D

1. The present claim petition is based on Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed under section 159/166 clause (4) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after Act) by the investigating officer of FIR No.426/19 Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi.

2. Facts narrated as per the FIR and charge-sheet are that the accident in the present case took place on 04.09.2018. It is mentioned in the FIR that on 04.09.2018, complainant was going on his motorcycle bearing No.DL-6SAL-8955 from Connaught Place to his home and at 03:00 P.M., when he reached Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg loop, a car bearing registration No.DL-12CB-3981, which was coming from Akshardham side, hit him while being driven in a rash and negligent manner. R-1 was driving the car. Due to forceful impact, petitioner fell down on the road and sustained injuries. In this connection, an FIR bearing No. 422/19 was registered at PS Shakarpur, Delhi.

3. Both respondents put in their appearance and filed their replies/ written statements.

3(i). In their joint written statement filed by the Respondent No. 1 & 2, they stated that the DAR is false and baseless and respondents are not liable or responsible for the alleged accident. It is further stated that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.1 at any moment of time and no accident ever took place with the vehicle of the respondents. It is further mentioned that they have falsely been involved in the present case in order to extort money from the respondents. It is further stated that the respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving licence & present DAR has been filed by police in connivance with the petitioner just to harass the respondents and to extort money. It is further submitted that driver of offending vehicle had never met with any accident with the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2 had been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is further mentioned that the R-1 was having valid driving licence on the date of accident. Rest of the averments of the DAR are denied.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 15.03.2021:-

(i) Whether the petitioner Deepak Sood suffered grievous injuries in a motor vehicular accident on 04.09.2018 at about 03:00 p.m., near loop bridge, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110091, within jurisdiction of PS Shakarpur, due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing registration No. DL-12CB-3961 being driven by respondent no.1/ Mohd. Farukh? (OPP).

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of said injuries and if yes, to what amount and from whom? (OPP).

(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the award amount, if so, at what rate and for which period ? (OPP)

5. In order to prove the present case, petitioner examined himself as PW1 and deposed on the strength of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and deposed regarding manner of accident, injuries suffered by him and the medical expenses incurred on his treatment and relied upon following documents:-

• Photocopy of aadhar card of petitioner is Ex.PW1/2 • Photocopies of treatment papaers are Mark A. PW1 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.

6. In their defence, respondents No.2 stepped into witness box and led evidence.

6.1 D2W1 / respondent No.2 Pooja Singh deposed on the strength of her affidavit Ex.D2W1/A.

7. I have heard Sh. Amit Chawla, Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Sh. Siddhant Banga, Ld. Counsel for R-2. Record has been perused.

8. The issues are decided as follows:-

ISSUE No.1:

9. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of probabilities.

10. In order to prove his case, the petitioner himself stepped into witness box as PW1. He clearly deposed that accident occurred due to being hit from behind by the offending vehicle, being driven by R-1 and that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. His testimony could not be impeached during cross-examination on the point of factum of accident and fault of R-1. R-2 is not eye witness to the accident and hence her testimony is not of much help to the defence taken by respondents on the point of manner of accident. Petitioner failed to produce his DL and suggestion was given to him in his cross-examination that he did not have any driving licence. However, no such suggestion was given that petitioner did not know how to drive. Driver / R-1 did not lead any evidence in defence and there is nothing to controvert the manner of accident as alleged by the petitioner.

11. Further, it is not disputed that respondent No.1/driver Mohd. Farukh was charge-sheeted in the aforesaid criminal case for causing the accident by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, prima-facie, it is clear that respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident.

12. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against respondent no. 1 the driver of the car. Filing of charge-sheet against the MACP No.426/19 Deepak Sood Vs. Mohd. Farukh & Anr. Page 4 of 9 driver of offending vehicle prima-facie points to his culpability. (New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Washeema Bano (2022) SCC OnLine All 403 and Mangla Ram vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (2018) 5SCC

656).

13. In New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Pazhaniammal (2011) (2) KLT 648, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held that as a general rule, it can be accepted that production of charge-sheet is prima-facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of claim under section 166 MV Act. If any party does not accept such charge-sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce evidence. If the Tribunal feels that charge- sheet is collusive, it can record that charge-sheet cannot be accepted and call upon the parties at any stage to adduce oral evidence of accident and alleged negligence. In such cases, issue of negligence must be decided on other evidence ignoring the charge-sheet.

14. MLC of the petitioner is filed alongwith DAR and proved on record and suggests that he sustained simple injuries. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the injuries sustained was 'grievous' on ground of some subsequent medical document of a private hospital and further remarks made on the back of the prescription of LBS Hospital but I do not find force in the submissions made. In the medical document of the LBS Hospital in question, there is specific mention underneath the observation that expert /radiologist opinion was awaited. It is further seen that there is nothing to suggest that any objection to the charge-sheet filed on record and MLC was filed by the petitioner. It is further seen that no doctor was examined and no X-ray report of LBS Hospital was proved on record to suggest that petitioner sustained fracture or so as to controvert the final finding of 'simple injury' on the MLC.

15. In view of above, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities of evidence and for filing of charge-sheet, it is proved that the petitioner Deepak Sood received simple injuries due to rash and negligent act of respondent no.1 Mohd. Farukh, the driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.

16. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance.

17. The case of Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Another (2011) 1 SCC 343, is one of the most prominent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which deals with compensation in injuries cases. It was held in this case that in routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under the heads-(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured , comprising (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment and (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation is also to be done under the head of loss of future earnings which would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured. The tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect MACP No.426/19 Deepak Sood Vs. Mohd. Farukh & Anr. Page 6 of 9 of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of percentage of the income. It has to be quantified in terms of money to arrive at the future loss of earnings by applying standard multiplier method. All injuries or permanent disabilities arising from injuries do not result in loss of earning capacity. If there is no loss of employment or earning capacity, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities consequent to his injuries.

18. Therefore, on the basis of the injuries to the petitioner, the compensation is awarded to her under the afore-said heads as follows :-

MEDICAL EXPENSES:

19. No original medical bills have been produced or proved on record. Under this head, only original medical bills are to be considered. Therefore, no sum of money is granted to the petitioner under this head.

PAIN AND SUFFERING:

20. Petitioner has deposed that after the accident, he was taken to LBS Hospital and then referred to GTB Hospital where his MLC was prepared. However, MLC on record of petitioner shows that the same was prepared at LBS Hospital. He has deposed that he underwent treatment at various hospitals and labs. However, it is admitted by him in his cross- examination that he was discharged on same date from LBS Hospital and went home. Suggestion was given to him that he was not referred from LBS Hospital to another hospital, which he denied. MLC reflects that petitioner had sustained abrasion on his forehead, hand, knee etc. and reported shoulder and back pain due to injuries sustained. The treatment MACP No.426/19 Deepak Sood Vs. Mohd. Farukh & Anr. Page 7 of 9 paper of GTB Hospital shows that he went to GTB Hospital on the same day and was prescribed medicines.

21. In view of this, it is clear the petitioner must have remained under pain and suffering for at least some time, however short the duration might have been. Hence, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is granted to the petitioner towards pain and suffering.

LOSS OF INCOME (DURING TREATMENT):

22. Petitioner has not led any evidence to suggest that any loss of income and he was discharged on the same day from LBS Hospital. There is nothing on the medical documents of petitioner to suggest that bed rest was prescribed to petitioner either by LBS or GTB Hospital. Further, while petitioner stated in his affidavit that he remained on bed, he did not state for how long he was on bed and whether there was loss of income and what work petitioner was doing. Hence, no amount is being granted to petitioner under this head.

CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET CHARGES:

23. Petitioner has not led any evidence to suggest what expenses he incurred on conveyance and special diet. In the light of the injuries sustained, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards conveyance and Rs.8,000/- towards special diet.

24. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-

  Sl. No.     Head of compensation                              Amount
     1.   Medical Expenses                                          Nil.
     2.   Pain & Suffering                                       Rs.20,000/-
          Loss of income (during                                    Nil
     3.
          treatment)
     4.   Conveyance and Special Diet                            Rs.16,000/-

MACP No.426/19            Deepak Sood Vs. Mohd. Farukh & Anr.                  Page 8 of 9
                expenses
                    TOTAL                                      Rs. 36,000/-

25. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.36,000/-.

LIABILITY

26. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents are liable to pay the compensation amount. Since vehicle was not insured on the date of accident, it is clear that respondent No.1 and 2 are liable to compensate the petitioner jointly or severally.

ISSUE NO. 3(INTEREST):

27. The petitioner has conducted the proceedings in this case since year 2019. Therefore, he is entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum on the aforesaid award amount from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization.

RELIEF:

28. In view of the findings on said issues, this Tribunal awards a total compensation of Rs.36,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition till the date of its realization, in favour of petitioner and against the Respondents No. 1 & 2 and same is required to be deposited with this Tribunal within 30 days by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

                                                     MAYURI    SINGH
                                                     SINGH     Date:
                                                               2025.03.22
                                                               17:08:20 +0000

Announced in the open                                (Mayuri Singh)
Court on 22.03.2025                             Presiding Officer-MACT (East)
(Total 9 pages)                                  Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

MACP No.426/19           Deepak Sood Vs. Mohd. Farukh & Anr.                      Page 9 of 9