Delhi District Court
Ayushi vs Sh. Gagan Kumar Sachdeva on 26 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF
RAJIV MEHRA : PRESIDING OFFICER
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : EAST DISTRICT
DELHI
Date of Institution : 09.03.2010.
Date of arguments : 26.08.2011.
Date of Award : 26.08.2011.
Suit No.168/10
Ayushi
D/o Sh. Tejpal Singh Bisht
R/o D-58, Gali No.2,
East Vinod Nagar
Delhi - 110091 ......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Gagan Kumar Sachdeva
S/o Sh. Pawan Kumar
R/o H.No. 797-A,
Behind Shiv Shakti Temple,
Near Indra Park, Jwala Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi - 32
2. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Partap Street, Ansari Road,
Daryaganj,
New Delhi - 110002 ......Respondents
AWARD
1. The petitioner in this case is a minor girl of six years. She has
received injuries in a road accident on 15.10.2009 happened within the
jurisdiction of P.S. Kalyan Puri. This claim petition has been filed for the
injuries suffered by the minor through her father against driver/owner and New
Suit No. 168/10 1/6
India Insurance Company giving insurance cover to the offending vehicle at the
time of the accident. The offending vehicle is a motorcycle bearing registration
no. DL-7S-BE-7345. The claim petition has been contested only by the
Insurance Company. No written statement has been filed by and on behalf of
the driver/owner R1.
2. Following issues were framed vide order dated 7.6.2011.
ISSUES
1. Whether Aayushi aged about five years suffered injuries in a road
accident on 15.10.2009 involving vehicle bearing registration No.
DL-7SBE-7345 driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by
R1?
2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioner is entitled
to and from whom?
3. Relief.
3. The insurance company found the case file fit for settlement after
complete verification. However, conciliation between the parties could not take
place because of gap of the amount of the compensation being offered by the
insurance company and expected by and on behalf of the petitioner. Since
verification is complete insurance company is not to lead any evidence. Sh. Tej
Pal Singh father of the injured has filed his affidavit. He has been examined as
PW-1. The police report under Section 158(6) Cr.P.C is also on record. Same
is Ex.PW1/5.
4. Heard the counsel of the petitioner and also counsel of the
Insurance Company.
Suit No. 168/10 2/6
5. Issue wise disposal of the inquiry is as under.
ISSUE NO.1
6. In the claim petition it has been averred that this accident has
been caused because of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the
driver. In affidavit Ex.P1 filed by PW-1 it has been deposed in Para 3 of the
affidavit that on 15.10.2009 at about 4.30 pm his daughter was returning to
home and when she reached at D-61, Indira Gandhi Marg, East Vinod Nagar
her accident was caused by motorcycle bearing no. DL-7S-BE-7345 being
driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver. According to PW-1 the
injured has sustained grievous injuries. She was taken to LBS Hospital. Her
treatment continued in the said hospital. In cross examination by the counsel
for the insurance company it has been admitted by PW-1 that he is not an eye
witness of the accident. However, the statement of PW-1 and contents of the
petition find support from the certified copy of the police report proved as
Ex.PW1/D. The FIR of the case has been registered vide No. 327/09 under
Section 279/337 IPC at PS Kalyan Puri on the statement of one Allaha Ram.
Allaha Ram has given to the police the manner in which the accident has taken
place and also the number of the motorcycle. He has stated in the said FIR
that this accident was caused because of the over speeding of the motorcycle.
After the accident injured was taken to LBS Hospital. Her MLC was prepared
in the hospital. The copy of the MLC proved as Ex.PW1/C shows that she
arrived in the hospital on 15.10.2009 with alleged history of RTA with
observation that patient was brought in casualty with alleged history of RTA at
about 4.30 pm on 15.10.2009 and was referred to SR Ortho where the patient
was advise admission and traction applied. Then the patient went LAMA and
returned back with a request for MLC.
Suit No. 168/10 3/6
7. The mechanical Inspection Report of the offending motorcycle
shows fresh damage of front head wise scratch. Accordingly the police report
by way of MLC, Mechanical Inspection Report and FIR support the claim of the
petitioner that the accident in question has taken place because of the
involving of the offending motorcycle. There is no defence from the side of the
driver/owner of the motorcycle. The criminal case has been registered at the
concerned police station against the driver of the motorcycle. The testimony of
PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence on record in the considered opinion
of this Tribunal bring sufficient material on record to presume that the accident
of minor Aayushi has taken place only because of rash and negligent driving of
the motorcycle involved in her accident by the driver Gagan Kumar Sachdeva.
Issue no.1 is disposed of accordingly.
ISSUE NO.2
8. The medical treatment record of the injured shows that she has
suffered fracture SOF IP. She was admitted in LBS Hospital as per the
discharge summary of the hospital on 16.10.2009 and was discharged on
23.10.2009. The OPD record of the hospital shows that she kept attending the
OPD of the hospital last upto 24.12.2009. In his cross examination PW-1 has
admitted that the entire treatment of the petitioner has taken place in LBS
hospital but except medicines which were purchased by him from the open
market.
9. According to the counsel for the Insurance Company no medical
bills have been filed by the petitioner on record. Keeping in view the entire
facts and evidence on record of the treatment of the petitioner Aayushi this
Tribunal is of the view that petitioner may be awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on
account of pain and sufferings since the injuries are grievous in nature and she
remained admitted in the hospital for a period of eight days and even she was
Suit No. 168/10 4/6
visiting to the OPD for about seventee (70) days.
10. Petitioner is also awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- on account of
medical charges and also a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for special diet and
conveyance. She is also awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- on account of
education loss to her.
11. Keeping in view all the relevant factors and evidence on record
this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for compensation as
per following details.
1. Medical expenses : Rs. 5000/-
2. Conveyance & Special diet : Rs. 10,000/-
3. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 25,000/-
4. Education loss : Rs. 5,000/-
---------------------------
Total Rs. : Rs. 45,000/-
---------------------------
LIABILITY
12. R1 is the main tort feasor. R2 is the insured. Since R2 was having the insurance policy the responsibility of payment would be of R3 Insurance Company.
13. An award of the amount of Rs. 45,000/- is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount minus the amount of interim compensation if any and interest excepted if any with responsibility of R3 Insurance Company to make the payment of the award Suit No. 168/10 5/6 amount.
14. The entire award amount be kept in FDR till the petitioner attains the age of 21 years.
15. The Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount with up to date interest in UCO Bank, Branch Karkardooma under intimation to this Court and Bank would keep this amount in an account in the name of Judge MACT East.
16. An attested copy of this award alongwith a recent photograph of the petitioner with Court Stamp be sent to the Bank for facilitating the compliance. Put up for compliance on 5.10.2011.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 26.8.2011.
( RAJIV MEHRA ) PRESIDING OFFICER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL EAST DISTRICT KKD COURTS : DELHI Suit No. 168/10 6/6