Delhi District Court
Mr. Akhilesh vs Mr. Praveen Singh on 19 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MR. S. S. MALHOTRA: PO:MACT1 (NORTH):
ROHINI: DELHI
MACT No.561/17
FIR No.23/17
PS Shahbad Dairy
Mr. Akhilesh
S/o Mr. Ramdhani
R/o H. no.F110/11, Shahbad Dairy,
Delhi.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Mr. Praveen Singh
S/o Mr. Chandan Singh
R/o 5/9, Geeta Colony,
Delhi.
Also at Chaturvedi Nagar, District Bhind, M. P.
2. Mr. Sainoor Ali
S/o Mr. Abdul Samd
R/o H. no.15, Krishna Colony,
Gurgaon.
3. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited
1001, LGF, Naiwala, Arya Samaj Road,
Naiwala Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
....Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF PETITION : 10.07.2017 AWARD RESERVED ON : 01.11.2018 DATE OF AWARD : 19.11.2018 FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident: 13.01.2017 MACT no. 561/17 Akhilesh Vs. Praveen Singh & ors. Page 1 of 11
2. Name of injured: Akhilesh
3. Age of the injured: 33 years
4. Occupation of the injured: Driver
5. Income of the injured: Rs.16,000/ per month
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Delhi.
8. Period of hospitalization: 13.01.2017 to 17.02.2017.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details. N/A.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment 10,030/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance 15,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet 15,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Nil
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of income 29,172/ (9,724 x 3)
(vii) Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical shock 15,000/
(ii) Pain and suffering 15,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, Nil disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. MACT no. 561/17 Akhilesh Vs. Praveen Singh & ors. Page 2 of 11
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature of Nil disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life Nil span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in Nil relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X%Earning Nil capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION 99,202/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the date of compliance 13,392.27 (99,202 x 9/100 x 18/12)
17. Total amount including interest 1,12,594.27 (rounded as 1,13,000/)
18. Award amount released 10%
19. Award amount kept in FDRs 90%
20. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to In phased manner the claimant (s) (Clause29)
21. Next date for compliance of the award. (Clause 10.01.2019
31) FORM - V COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEXDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 13.01.2017
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the investigating 10.07.2017 officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the investigating do officer to the insurance company. (Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. before Not known the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10) MACT no. 561/17 Akhilesh Vs. Praveen Singh & ors. Page 3 of 11
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report 10.07.2017 (DAR) by the investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance Company (Clause do
11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s). (Clause 11) do
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause 16) Yes
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on? N/A
10. Whether the police has verified the documents filed with Yes DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Yes. Directions are Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction being issued as per warranted? Hon'ble High Court to all DCPs/CP, Delhi.
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Not known insurance Company. (Clause 20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated Mr. Rama Raman Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance Company do submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause
20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the liability? If Yes. Insurance so, whether the Designated Officer of the insurance company has made company fairly computed the compensation in accordance an offer of with law. (Clause 23) Rs.54,500/ which was not accepted by petitioner.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the No Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of the Not known Insurance Company. (Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 19.11.2018
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent of the No MACT no. 561/17 Akhilesh Vs. Praveen Singh & ors. Page 4 of 11 parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open saving bank Yes account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open 25.01.2018 saving bank account (s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the passbook of 01.11.2018 their saving bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card? (Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) (Clause H. no.F110/11,
27) Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and the State Bank of address of the bank with IFSC Code (Clause 27) India, Mehnagar Branch, District Azamgarh, U. P. having no.
37937542606.
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) is near his Yes place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of Yes passing of the award.
AWARD
1. Police filed Detailed Accident Report (DAR) with respect to accident occurred on 13.01.2017. Brief facts of the DAR are that on 13.01.2017 on receipt of DD no.7A, IO SI Kulvir Singh alongwith Ct. Chet Ram reached DTU College, Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi where they found one TATA407 bearing no.DL1LX3607 and Truck no.HR55M7486 in accidental condition and they came to know that injured was taken to Dr. Baba Saheb MACT no. 561/17 Akhilesh Vs. Praveen Singh & ors. Page 5 of 11 Ambedkar Hospital, Delhi. No eyewitness met them there. Leaving Ct. Chet Ram on the spot, IO reached said Hospital and collected MLC of injured person and got recorded statement of injured. On an endorsement made by IO on that statement, FIR No.23/17 was registered at PS Shahbad Dairy, Delhi, about that accident.
2. After completion of investigation, police indicted respondent no.1 Mr. Praveen Singh (driver) respondent no.2 Mr. Sainoor Ali (owner) and respondent no.3 Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited (insurer) for offences punishable under Sections 279/337 of IPC. IO filed 'Detailed Accident Report' (DAR) before this tribunal on 10.07.2017 and produced injured person, driver and owner before this tribunal. Offending vehicle was duly insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited i.e. respondent no.3 and Mr. Anupam Kumar Singh, proxy counsel on behalf of said respondent was present at the time of filing of DAR.
3. Respondents contested the petition by filing their written statements.
Respondent no.1 and 2 have filed their joint written statement stating therein that the alleged accident was not occurred on account of rash, high speed or negligent driving of respondent no.1 and the petitioner was crossing the road in violation of traffic rules and hence they are not liable to pay any compensation.
4. Respondent no.3 filed its reply/written statement in the form of offer of Rs.54,500/ which was not accepted by the petitioner. It is admitted by the respondent no.3 that the offending vehicle was insured with it from 14.03.2016 to 13.03.2017.
5. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed on 25.01.2018:
(i) Whether petitioner Akhilesh suffered injuries in a vehicular accident MACT no. 561/17 Akhilesh Vs. Praveen Singh & ors. Page 6 of 11 occurred on 13.01.2017 at 06:30 am near DTU College, Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle no. HR55M 7486 by Mr. Parveen (respondent no.1)? OPP.
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation if so, what amount and from which of respondents? OPP.
(iii) Relief.
6. In order to prove his claim, petitioner examined himself as PW1.
Respondents have not examined any witness.
7. I heard ld. counsels appearing on behalf of petitioner and respondent no.3.
My issuewise findings are as under: I SSUE No.1: Whether petitioner Akhilesh suffered injuries in a vehicular accident occurred on 13.01.2017 at 06:30 am near DTU College, Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle no. HR55M7486 by Mr. Parveen (respondent no.1)? OPP.
8. The onus of this issue is upon the petitioner. To prove this fact petitioner examined himself as PW1 and in his affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), he reiterated the facts of DAR. He deposed that on 13.01.2017 he was going to Ghazipur from Shahbad Daulatpur by TATA407 no.DL1LX3607 which was being driven by him and at about 06:30 pm when he reached near DTU College, Shahbad Daulatpur, PS Shahbad Dairy, Delhi, in the meanwhile the offending vehicle no.HR55M7486 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite side after changing its driving lane and hit his vehicle with great force. He deposed that as a result of this, he sustained grievous injuries and he was removed to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Delhi and he remained admitted there from 13.01.2017 to 17.02.2017.
9. The witness has been duly crossexamined but the testimony of the witness MACT no. 561/17 Akhilesh Vs. Praveen Singh & ors. Page 7 of 11 with respect to accident and rash & negligent driving of offending vehicle could not be impeached. Being injured, petitioner is the natural eyewitness of the case. On the other hand, there is no evidence at all to show that victim was at fault, in any way. The fact that petitioner suffered injuries in that accident is also supported by medical documents. I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. Even otherwise the fact of negligence while disposing off a claim under MACT, is not that strict as it is under Sections 279/338 of IPC. After investigation, police indicted respondent no.1 for offences punishable under Sections 279/338 of IPC. Considering all this, it stands established that accident in question took place due to rash or negligent driving of the driver of vehicle bearing no. HR55M7486 i.e. respondent no.1 and petitioner suffered injuries in that accident. Being injured, petitioner is well within his rights to claim compensation.
10. This issue is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondents by holding that petitioner suffered injuries in a vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.HR55M7486 by respondent no.1.
ISSUE No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation if so, what amount and from which of respondents? OPP.
11. It is deposed by PW1 that from the spot, he was taken to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Delhi and he remained admitted there from 13.01.2017 to 17.02.2017. He deposed that due to accident, he spent about Rs.80,000/ on his treatment, Rs.15,000/ on conveyance, Rs.15,000/ on special diets and Rs.20,000/ on attendant charges. However medical bills of Rs.10,030/ have been placed on file. The said amount of Rs.10,030/ is granted to the petitioner as medical expenses. There is no evidence except deposition of petitioner to verify that he spent any amount on his special diets and MACT no. 561/17 Akhilesh Vs. Praveen Singh & ors. Page 8 of 11 conveyance. Seeing nature of injuries suffered by him, petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.15,000/ for special diets and Rs.15,000/ for conveyance. In absence of any evidence, no reason to allow any compensation in name of attendant charges. Request in this regard is declined. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that his client could not work from the date of accident till recording of his testimony and he claimed loss of earnings during the said period. Keeping in view the injuries suffered by the petitioner, he is also granted a sum of Rs.29,172/ (9,724 x 3) i.e. equal to two months income towards for loss of earnings during the period of treatment.
12. Apart from amounts mentioned above, petitioner is allowed a sum of Rs.15,000/ for mental pain and physical shock and a sum of Rs.15,000/ for pain and suffering due to this accident, making a total of Rs.99,202/, detail of which is given as under:
(i) Medical expenses Rs. 10,030/
(ii) Special diets Rs. 15,000/
(iii) Conveyance Rs. 15,000/
(iv) Loss of income during treatment Rs. 29,172/
(iv) Mental pain and physical shock Rs. 15,000/
(v) Pain & suffering Rs. 15,000/ Total Rs. 99,202/
13. Now coming to the aspect of liability. It has already been held herein above that the petitioner had suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. He is primarily liable to make payment. However, the petitioner has made the respondent no.3 (insurance company) as one of the party seeking direction to respondent no.3 that it be directed to pay the compensation to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 on the date of accident. In view of the above and since the respondent no.3 has no statutory defence, respondent MACT no. 561/17 Akhilesh Vs. Praveen Singh & ors. Page 9 of 11 no.3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
14. This issue is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondents by holding that petitioner is entitled for compensation from respondent no.3.
ISSUE No. 3 (RELIEF)
15. Petition in hands is allowed. Respondent no.3 is directed to pay Rs.99,202/ (Rs.1,13,000/ alongwith interest upto the date of compliance) to the petitioner as compensation in this case, within 30 days from today, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 10.07.2017 till realization of amount.
16. On 01.11.2018, petitioner gave a statement about disbursement of amount of compensation.
17. Considering circumstances of petitioner and after consulting ld. counsel representing him, it is directed that 90% of the amount of compensation be invested in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank in the name of petitioner for a period of one year and remaining 10% of amount be disbursed to him by way of transferring the same in his saving bank account that too in terms of modified directions and where from the petitioner would be allowed to withdraw the same through withdrawal slip only and by no other mode/modes i.e. ATM/ debit card/credit card/letter/NEFT/RTGS etc.
18. The salient features as prescribed in the judgment in Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Ramesh Chandra Gupta FAO No. 842/2009 and MAC. App. No. 422/2009 decided on 07.11.2014 are to be applied:
(i) The fixed deposit be renewed automatically till the period prescribed by the Court.
(ii) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid monthly.
(iii) The monthly interest be credited automatically in the saving account of MACT no. 561/17 Akhilesh Vs. Praveen Singh & ors. Page 10 of 11 the claimant.
(iv) Original fixed deposit receipt be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the original passbook shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipt be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant.
(vii) No cheque book/ATM/debit card/credit card shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the Court.
(viii) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature encashment shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the Court.
19. Respondent no.3 is directed to deposit entire amount of compensation with this tribunal, within 30 days from today, with advance notice to petitioner.
Digitally signed by SUKHVIR SUKHVIR SINGH
File be consigned to record room. SINGH MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.11.19
MALHOTRA 14:45:48 +0000
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (S. S. MALHOTRA)
COURT ON 19.11.2018 PO, MACT NORTH, ROHINI,
DELHI
MACT no. 561/17 Akhilesh Vs. Praveen Singh & ors. Page 11 of 11