Delhi District Court
A K Tripathi vs . Prabhat Ranjan on 14 September, 2012
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan
Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT II
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. 918/10
Unique case ID : 02403C0025412009
1. Mr. A K Tripathi
S/o Late M P Tripathi
2. Mrs. Shashi Prabha Tripathi
W/o Sh. A K Tripathi
Both H. No. 386, Sector4,
R K Puram, New Delhi - 22.
Petition No. 907/10
Unique case ID : 02403C0107482007
Nischal Sharma
S/o Sh. Umesh Chander
R/o 2/13, Dakshin Puri,
Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Prabhat Ranjan
S/o Late Chandrika Prasad
R/o B3, RBI Staff Colony,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi
Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 1/31
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan
Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan
2
2. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
st
Lotus Tower, 1 Floor,
Community Centre, New Friends Colony
New Delhi - 110 065
...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.01.09 (Petition No. 918/10)
23.02.07 (Petition No. 907/10)
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 22.08.12
Date of pronouncement : 14.09.12
J U D G M E N T :
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose off the above stated petitions filed under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as amended upto date (herein after referred to as Act), as the same have emerged out of an accident which occurred on 15.10.06 at about 1.30 PM on the road adjoining DDA Park, running from Chaudhary Dalip Singh Marg to Laxman Public School, New Delhi whereby the petitioners have claimed compensation for untimely death of Ms. Shobha Tripathi and injuries on the person of Nischal Sharma.
Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 2/31
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 3
2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts leading to the above stated petitions are that on 15.10.06 at about 1.00 PM Ms. Shobha Tripathi alongwith her friend Nischal had gone to DDA park to have their lunch after attending MCA class at Laxman Public School. At about 1.30 PM when they came out of the park, Nischal started his motorcycle which he had parked on the left side of the road near the gate of the park. Both Nischal and Shobha Tripathi sat on the motorcycle. When they were about to proceed towards Laxman Public School to attend the remaining class, a Santro car bearing no. DL 3C AP 4792 being driven by respondent no.1 rashly and negligently came from the side of Hauz Khas and hit their motorcycle from behind. Due to the forceful impact, both of them were thrown away on the road. The car then dashed the pavement and stopped. Both of them were removed to Safdarjung Hospital. Ms. Shobha could not survive and she died at about 10.30 PM in AIIMS on the same day. Nischal Sharma sustained injuries on his lip and fracture in his right thigh. A case was registered vide FIR 652/06 at the police station Hauz Khas.
3. Ms. Shobha was 26 years of age. She did her schooling from Kendriya Vidyalaya R K Puram in 1997 and her graduation from Indira Gandhi National Open University in the year 2004. During the period from 1997 to Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 3/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 4 2004 she did various professional courses and then got enrolled for MCA with the above university. She had completed one year of the MCA course. She had participated in various curricular activities and got meritorious certificates. On 01.04.06 she had joined Ritika Shipping Lines Pvt. Ltd. at Vasant Kunj as Front Desk cum Computer Operator on a salary of Rs. 9000/ p.m. It was stated that had she completed her MCA she would have got job of a software professional in a reputed Multi National Company and got a package of Rs. 6,00,000/ p.a. It was stated that she was survived by her parents.
4. Nischal Sharma was 23 years of age. He had been working in Laxman Medical Store at Dakshin Puri and used to get Rs. 8000/ p.m. It was stated that he had spent Rs. 20000/ on his treatment besides other expenses.
5. It was stated that the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle of which he was also the owner. It was further stated that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.2.
6. Notice of the petition was given to both the respondents. They contested the petitions and filed their written statements wherein they denied the Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 4/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 5 averments made in the petition and denied their liability. It was alleged by the respondent no.1 that the site plan clearly depicts that the deceased/injured were standing on the wrong side of the road on the motorcycle. There were no damages on the rear side of the motorcycle as apparent from the mechanical inspection report. It was stated that the deceased/injured were moving to the direction opposite of Laxman Public School and due to the rash and negligent driving by Nischal Sharma, the motorcycle collided with the vehicle of the respondent no.2 which resulted in the accident. It was stated that there was no authorised parking at the place of accident. Respondent no.2 stated that the offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 0150106918 w.e.f. 06.07.06 in the name of respondent no.1.
7. Following issues were framed in both the petitions vide order dated 02.06.07 (Petition no. 907/10) and 10.09.09 (Petition no. 918/10) : Petition No. 907/10
1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in the accident on 15.10.06 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 3C AP 4792 on the part of R1?
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?
3. Relief.
Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 5/31
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 6 Petition No. 918/10
1. Whether deceased died due to the injuries received by him in an accident on 15.10.06 which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of no. DL 3C P 4792 by R1, Prabhat Ranjan and vehicle owned by him and insured with R3 insurance company?
2. The amount of compensation, petitioners are entitled to?
3. Relief.
8. The parties were thereafter, called upon to substantiate their case by leading their evidence. In petition no. 918/10, petitioners examined Sh. A K Tripathi as PW1 and Sh. Ugarnath Jha, Accountant, Ritika Shipping Lines. Pvt. Ltd. as PW2. In the petition no. 907/10 the petitioner examined himself as PW1, Sh. Swapan Shome, MRT Safdarjung Hospital as PW2. The respondent no.1 examined himself as R1W1 and Sh. Rajeev Ranjan as R1W2. Respondent no.2 examined Sh. Rajesh Kumar as R2W1.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel Sh. S K Rathi for the petitioners and Ms. Anjali Bansal for the respondent no.2.
10. It was contended by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the deceased was Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 6/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 7 26 years of age, unmarried and the claimants are her parents. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the respondent no.1 which is pending trial. The car had hit the motorcycle from behind which perse amounts to negligence.
11. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.2 contended that the respondent no.1 did not have a permanent license. He was having a Learner license and as per Motor Vehicles Rules, a person holder of an effective Learner License must be accompanied by an Instructor holding an effective license to drive the vehicle and such Instructor must be sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. Ld. counsel stated that testimony of PW1 reveals that the respondent no.1 was accompanied by a lady and a child and there was no one with him who had a valid and effective license to drive the vehicle. The mechanical inspection report is contrary to the facts stated in the petition. The petitioners have concealed the material facts and have not come in this Tribunal with clean hands. The shop from which the petitioner Nischal Sharma allegedly purchased the medicines belongs to his mother and all the medical bills are false and procured.
12. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. My findings on the issues are as follows :
Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 7/31
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 8 I S S U E N O. 1
13. It is well settled law that where a petition under Section 166 of the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and negligent driving. To prove rash and negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
14. PW1 Nischal Sharma in his affidavit tendered as Ex.PW1/X has stated that on 15.10.06 at about 1.30 PM when he alongwith his friend Ms. Shobha Tripathi started the motorcycle bearing no. DL 9S T 0109 and were about to go for attending the MCA Class at Laxman Public School, a Santro car bearing no. DL 3C AP 4792 driven by respondent no.1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from Hauz Khas side and hit them from the back side. Due to the impact he had his friend sustained multiple injuries Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 8/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 9 and his friend died on the same day on 15.10.06. He was admitted at Safdarjung Hospital. He stated that a case was registered vide FIR 652/06 at the police station Hauz Khas. He stated that the park where he had taken the lunch was about 100150 yds. from the school. It was on the left side of a person coming from the side of Hauz Khas. When the car hit the motorcycle, it was in a stationary position. It got damaged from the front and the rear side. He denied that he was coming on the wrong side from the park to proceed to Hauz Khas and hit the car driven by R1 on the front side. He was shown the photographs of the motorcycle mark A to C. He stated that there were three persons in the car of respondent no.1 i.e. respondent no.1, a lady and a child. However, he denied that he was not driving the car at a fast speed. Although, petitioner A K Tripathi had appeared in the witness box as PW1 but his testimony reveals that he was not present at the time of accident.
15. In this case respondent no.1 had appeared in the witness box as R1W1. He has also tendered his affidavit Ex.R1W1/X and the documents Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/5. He has stated that on 15.10.06 at about 1.15/1.30 PM he was going to his residence at RBI Colony from Hauz Khas market. His brother Rajeev Ranjan was sitting with him on the front seat. His wife and son were Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 9/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 10 on the back seat. He had put "L" sign in red on the front and back window glass. He stated that as soon as he took left turn from Chaudhary Dalip Singh marg for going to RBI Colony and went about 5060 yds. ahead, the petitioner suddenly appeared from the wrong side of the road riding his motorcycle from the DDA park side of the road. In order to avoid collision he turned the car towards left side/DDA Park side of the road but the petitioner suddenly turned towards the right side (DDA Park side of the road) and the collision took place. He filed the site plan Ex.R1W1/1 and stated that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner as he was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road. He also filed the mechanical inspection report Ex.R1W2 and stated that there was a head on collision. He stated that he had moved RTI application to MCD and the MCD vide letter Ex.RW1/4 has replied that there was no parking site at the place of accident.
16. I have perused the charge sheet Ex.PW1/24, statement of the petitioner Nischal recorded by the police forming basis of FIR Ex.PW1/26, mechanical inspection report of the Santro car Ex.PW1/28, mechanical inspection report of the motorcycle Ex.PW1/29 and the site plan. The petitioner Nischal in his statement given to the police Ex.PW1/26 had stated that after taking lunch Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 10/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 11 with his friend Shobha at DDA Park in front of Hauz Khas Enclave at about 1.30 PM he started his motorcycle. When they were about to move, a Santro car DL 3C AP 4792 being driven by Prabhat Ranjan at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner hit his motorcycle from behind resulting injuries on their persons.
17. The case was registered on the same day of accident as is evident from the FIR Ex.PW1/25. The mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles reveal that there were fresh damages on the front portion of the car and damages on the front as well as rear portion of the motorcycle. The mechanical inspection report clearly shows fresh damages on the rear portion of the motorcycle. Further, the motorcycle after being hit had moved ahead resulting damages on its front portion. I have also gone through the site plan. The place of accident has been shown at point "A" in front of DDA Tikona park gate. The traffic on this road is a two way traffic. The position shown in the site plan clearly shows that the petitioner Nischal Sharma was on the correct side of the road i.e. left of the road at point A when his motorcycle was hit by the car from behind. The site plan and the mechanical inspection report in no way suggest that the petitioner Nischal Sharma was going on the wrong side of the road or there was a head on collision as Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 11/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 12 stated by the R1W1 in his testimony. Facts and circumstances rather show that the offending car had hit the motorcycle from behind and the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing no. DL 3C AP 4792 from behind.
18. As regards contention that the place of accident was a No Parking Zone, perusal of the site plan clearly shows that there was an entrance gate to the park at the place of accident. No doubt it was No Parking place but it was incumbent upon the driver of the offending vehicle to see what traffic was standing and moving on the road. In the instant case the offending vehicle had hit the motorcycle from behind which perse amounts to negligence. So, it cannot be said that the accident had occurred owing to negligence of the petitioner Nischal Sharma. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled ''National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pushpa Rana'' reported as 2009 ACJ 287 has held that whenever criminal proceedings are placed on record on completion of investigation by the police, then that in itself is sufficient proof of the negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.
It has come on record that the respondent no.1 was driving the car at the time of accident and he was also the owner of the car. Written statement Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 12/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 13 filed by respondent and the policy shows that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.2 at the time of accident.
19. The petitioners have placed on record the MLC of Nischal Sharma which go to show that he sustained fracture and the injuries on his person were grievous in nature. Ms. Shobha Tripathi died in the accident. As per the postmortem report, cause of her death was comma due to head injury caused by blunt force possible in the road traffic accident.
20. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the petitioners have proved that Ms. Shobha Tripathi died due to the injuries received by her in an accident on 15.10.06 and Nischal Sharma sustained grievous injuries which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Santro car bearing no. DL 3C AP 4792 by the respondent no.1 Prabhat Ranjan and the vehicle was also owned by Prabhat Ranjan and insured with respondent no.2, the insurance company.
21. Issue no.1 in both the petitions are accordingly, decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 13/31
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 14 I S S U E No. 2 Petition No. 918/10
22. The petitioners have claimed compensation for untimely death of Ms. Shobha. Let me assess the compensation which the petitioners are entitled for under different heads.
23. It has been held in a catena of judgments that emphasis in cases of personal injury and fatal accident should be on awarding substantial, just and fair compensation and not a token amount. General principle in calculating such sum of compensation, should be so as to put the injured or legal heirs of a deceased in case of fatal accident, in the same position as he would have been, if accident had not taken place. The amount of compensation no doubt cannot bring back the dead but it certainly helps the LR's and dependents to live life with dignity and comfort as they were living during the lifetime of the deceased. The amount of compensation is awarded on the basis of age, the earning capacity and other liabilities of the deceased. The appropriate method of calculating compensation in fatal cases is multiplier method. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments has laid down that in India, the multiplier method is proper for calculation of compensation. Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 14/31
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 15
24. In order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads :
(a) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY :
25. Petitioner no. 1 Sh. A K Tripathi during the course of his deposition as PW1 has stated that the petitioners being father and mother are the only legal heirs of the deceased Ms. Shobha. This fact has not been controverted by the respondents and no contrary evidence to that effect has been brought on record. No one else has challenged the claim petition filed by the petitioners, therefore, deposition of PW1 is to be believed on this aspect.
26. PW1 has stated that the deceased was 26 years of age and a brilliant student. She did her graduation from Indira Gandhi National Open University in 2004. During the period from 1997 to 2001 she underwent various courses viz. Commercial painting, dress making and dress designing. She had also done Diploma in Internet Programming. She was doing MCA from Indira Gandhi National Open University. At the time of accident she was working with Ritika Shipping Lines Pvt. Ltd. as Front Desk cum Computer Operator on a monthly salary of Rs. 9000/ p.m. After completion of her MCA she would have got a job in a Multi National Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 15/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 16 Company on a salary package of Rs. 6,00,000/ p.a. PW2 Sh. Ugranath Jha, Accountant of Ritika Shipping Line Pvt. Ltd. has brought the service record of the deceased. He has stated that she had worked with the company from 01.04.06 to 14.10.06. He proved the attendance and payment of salary record of the deceased for the relevant period Ex.PW2/1. He has stated that the deceased was doing MCA while in service, had she continued in service her salary would have been Rs. 50,000/ p.m.
27. From the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and the documents placed on record, I find that the deceased was brilliant in studies. She was working in Ritika Shipping Lines Pvt. Ltd. and getting Rs. 9,000/ p.m. She had not completed her MBA. Taking the educational and curricular background, the salary of the deceased for calculating the loss of dependency is taken as Rs. 15,000/ p.m. In the present case, the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the mother and father of the deceased. It was held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129 that in regard to the bachelor, normally 50 per cent is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there was a possibility of her getting married in a short time, in which time the contribution to the parents and siblings would be cut Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 16/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 17 drastically. It was also held that even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered as dependent and 50 per cent would be treated as personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 per cent as the contribution to the family. It was also held that while calculating the dependency, the multiplier is to be applied with reference to the age of the mother in the case of a bachelor. In the case of Rakhi vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. MAC App. 390/2011, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 16.07.12 held that on the basis of judgment in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Manu/SC/0322/2012, it can very well be said that the persons who are getting fixed salary or who are self employed as skilled / unskilled workers like Barber, Blacksmith, Cobbler, Mason, Carpenter etc. would be entitled to an increase in the income to the extent of 30% on account of inflation when the deceased or the victim is aged upto 50 years. Applying the ratio of the case (Supra), the claimants in the present case are entitled to an increase of 30% in the salary/income/wages on account of inflation. In the present case as evident from the voter Icard Ex.PW1/24, the mother of the deceased was 50 years of age as on 01.01.08. The accident took place on 15.10.06. Hence, a multiplier of '13' is taken for calculating the loss of dependency. In view thereof, the annual income of the deceased would come to Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 17/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 18 Rs. 15,000 x 12 = Rs. 1,80,000/. Adding the future prospects, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,80,000 + 54,000 (30% of 1,80,000/) = Rs. 2,34,000/. After deducting 50 per cent towards personal & living expenses, the net income for calculating the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,17,000/ per annum. Using the multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 15,21,000/ (13 x 1,17,000).
28. I therefore, award a sum of Rs. 15,21,000/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Dependency".
(b) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION :
29. Petitioners at this stage of their life have lost their daughter on whom they were financially and emotionally dependent. Care, love and affection which they had required from her can not be measured or assessed in terms of money. In view thereof, I award a sum of Rs. 25,000/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Love and Affection".
(c) FUNERAL EXPENSES :
30. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Funeral Expenses".
Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 18/31
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 19
(d) LOSS OF ESTATE :
31. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Loss of Estate".
32. Thus, the total compensation awarded in favour of the petitioners is assessed as under :
1) Loss of Dependency : Rs. 15,21,000/
2) Loss of Love & Affection : Rs. 25,000/
3) Funeral Expenses : Rs. 10,000/
4) Loss of Estate : Rs. 10,000/ : ============ Total : Rs. 15,66,000/ ============ In Petition No. 907/10
33. The petitioner has claimed compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him. It is true that when a person is injured in a road accident, he is entitled to the compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.
34. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.O. Hattangadi V/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 that: "Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 19/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 20 pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as nonpecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit ; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, ie. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED ON MEDICAL TREATMENT :
35. PW1 / petitioner has stated that immediately after the accident he was taken to Safdarjung Hospital where his MLC Ex.PW1/1 was prepared. He was treated for the injuries CLW above upper lip and jaw, fracture and radicus Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 20/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 21 and surgery took place swelling in right palm, fracture on right hand, swelling in right thigh and multiple injuries on other parts of the body. He has filed the medical bills of Rs. 21,189/. The counsel for the insurance company states that the bills were obtained by the injured from his shop. On perusal of the medical bills and prescription, I find that bills corelates with the MLC and medical advise given by the Doctor. Looking into the facts and circumstances, I award Rs. 21,200/ to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
36. Medical record of the petitioner indicates that he was hale and hearty before the accident. He sustained fracture and multiple injuries. He was a young boy aged about 22 years. The injuries had caused him lot of pain and mental agony. Taking into consideration his multiple injuries and permanent disability I award a sum of Rs. 25,000/ to the petitioner towards pain and suffering and enjoyment of life.
COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT CHARGES AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES :
Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 21/31
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 22
37. Petitioner has stated that from the spot he was taken to Safdarjung Hospital.
He followed up his treatment as an OPD patient. He had received injuries CLW above upper lip and jaw. He was advised bed rest for three months. The injuries were such that he might have taken the help of attendant for about two months for performing his ordinary pursuits. He was advised special diet for early recovery. Looking into his injuries and the treatment he underwent, I award Rs. 15,000/ towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
38. PW1/petitioner sustained injuries CLW above upper lip and jaw and other other multiple injuries on his body. He was operated. He remained hospitalised in Safdarjung Hospital. The injuries on his person were grievous in nature. He was working with Laxmi Medical Store and getting Rs. 8,000/ p.m. Looking into the injuries, I take a period of three months for which he might have remained bed ridden, the loss of income comes to Rs. 3 x 8,000 = Rs. 24,000/. I, therefore, award Rs. 24,000/ to the petitioner towards loss of income.
Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 22/31
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 23
39. Thus, the total compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner is assessed as under : Medical Expenses : Rs. 21,200/ Pain & Sufferings & Enjoyment of Life : Rs. 25,000/ Special Diet, Attendant & Conveyance : Rs. 15,000/ Loss of Income : Rs. 24,000/ =========== TOTAL : Rs. 85,200/ =========== L I A B I L I T Y
40. As regards the liability, the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1, therefore primary liability to compensate the petitioners is that of respondent no.1. As the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.1, therefore, he becomes vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.2 therefore, respondent no.2, becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners.
41. Ld. counsel in her quest to get the insurance company exonerated from its liability contended that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of Motor Vehicle Rules. She placed reliance on the testimony of R2W1. Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 23/31
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 24
42. I have perused the testimony of R2W1, R1W1, R1W2 and the certified copy of the testimony of the I.O placed on record as well as the charge sheet Ex.PW1/24.
43. RW1 has stated that on 15.10.06 he was going to his house at RBI Colony from Hauz Khas market, his brother Rajeev Ranjan was sitting besides him on the front seat of the car. His wife and son were on the rear seat. He had put "L" sign in red which was displayed permanently on front and back window glasses. He has denied that his brother was not inside the car at the time of accident. On being crossexamined on behalf of respondent no.3 he has stated that he was having a Learner's license which was issued in July, 2006 and he was aware that a person having the Learner's license should drive a vehicle only in presence of someone holding a valid driving license. R1W2 who is the brother of the respondent no.1 has corroborated his testimony and stated that he was sitting with the respondent no.1 on the front seat at the time of accident. There was "L" sign on the car on the front and back window glass. He also placed on record his driving license Ex.PW2/1 perusal of it reveals that it was valid for driving the car. He also brought his license in the Court. His testimony on behalf of the respondent no.2 remained unrebutted on the aspect of his travelling with the petitioner Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 24/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 25 Nischal Sharma and having a driving license at the time of accident. R2W1 has brought the policy Ex.R2W1/1 and stated that respondent no.1 was not accompanied by his brother. In this case, certified copy of the criminal proceedings have been placed on record where the Investigating Officer H C Mahavir Singh was examined as PW6. He had stated that during investigation, the offending vehicle i.e. Santro car and the motorcycle were seized vide memo Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D. Learner's driving license was also seized vide memo Ex.PW6/E and the driving license of the brother of the accused was also seized vide memo Ex.PW6/F. His testimony makes it very clear rather supports the testimony of R1W1 and R1W2 that the respondent no.1 who was having a Learner license was not driving alone. He was accompanied by his brother i.e. R1W2 who was having a valid and effective license and he was sitting beside R1W1 i.e. respondent no.1 on the front seat. Viewed thereof, I do not find that it is a case of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy or Motor Vehicle Rules. Thus, liability is on the respondent no.2 to compensate the petitioners.
R E L I E F In Petition No. : 918/10
44.In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs. 15,66,000/ to the Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 25/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 26 petitioners as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award.
: RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioners : (Parents of the deceased Shobha)
45. A sum of Rs. 7,83,000/ each alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioners being parents of the deceased.
46. Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ each be deposited in the form of FDR in the name of petitioners in the following phased manner :
(a) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 2 years.
(b) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 4 years.
(c) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 5 years.
(d) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 6 years.
(e) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 7 years. In Petition no. : 907/10
47. I award a sum of Rs. 85,200/ to the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realisation of the amount. Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 26/31
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 27 Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
48. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled " Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.2009, UCO Bank/ State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
49. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled " New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ganga Devi & Ors bearing MAC. App. 135/2008" as well as in another case titled as " Union of India V/s Nanisiri" bearing M.A.C. Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the claimants.
50. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners.
Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 27/31
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 28 within a period of 40 days from today, failing which respondent no. 2 Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
51. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the manner stated above. It is also ordered that :
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners / claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioners / claimants after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to petitioners / claimants without the permission of this Court.
(iv) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioners / claimants alongwith the photocopy of the FDR .
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioners / claimants at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 28/31
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 29
(vii)Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(viii)On the request of petitioners / claimants, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Petitioners / claimants shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
52. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the petitioners who are directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after their having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount from the Insurance company.
53. Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to counsel for the Insurance Company for necessary compliance.
54. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
on 14th Day of September, 2012 (SANJIV JAIN )
Presiding Officer : MACTII
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 14.09.2012
Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 29/31
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan
Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan
30
A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan
14.09.2012
Present : None.
Vide common judgment both the petitions have been disposed off. The main judgment be placed in the file titled "A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan" and copy be placed in the other file.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN ) Presiding Officer : MACTII South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi : 14.09.2012 Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 30/31 A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 31 Nischal Sharma Vs. Prabhat Ranjan 14.09.2012 Present : None.
Vide common judgment both the petitions have been disposed off. The main judgment be placed in the file titled "A K Tripathi Vs. Prabhat Ranjan" and copy be placed in the other file.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN ) Presiding Officer : MACTII South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi : 14.09.2012 Suit No. : 918/10 and 907/10 31/31