Delhi District Court
Bahar Khan vs . Ravi Sejwal on 30 November, 2015
Bahar Khan Vs. Ravi Sejwal
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVEEN ARORA : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Suit No. 70/15
FIR No. : 183/15 :: PS : Mehrauli
Unique Case ID : 02406C0134542015
Bahar Khan
S/o Sh. Mohd. Mustakh Khan
R/o H. No. C284, BlockC,
Abul Fazal Enclave Part2,
Shaheen Bagh, Jamia Nagar,
New Delhi ......... Injured
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Ravi Sejwal
S/o Sh. Karambir
R/o F21C, Lado Sarai,
New Delhi ........... Driver
2. Sh. Karambir
S/o Sh. Mukhtiyar Singh
R/o F21C, Lado Sarai,
New Delhi ........... Owner
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Delhi .......... Insurer
......... Respondents
Suit No. 70/15 : FIR No. : 183/15, PS : Mehrauli Page No.1/10
Bahar Khan Vs. Ravi Sejwal
Date of Institution : 15.04.2015
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 30.11.2015
Date of pronouncement : 30.11.2015
J U D G M E N T :
1. A Detailed Accident Report was filed by the SHO of Police Station Mehrauli of an accident which occurred 19.01.2015 at 3.30 PM resulting injuries on the person of Bahar Khan.
2. Briefly, the facts are that on 19.01.2015 at about 3.30 PM the petitioner was going to Mehrauli by his motorcycle bearing no. DL 9SZ 8786. When he reached opp. Qutab Minar Circle, Mehrauli, then all of a sudden a car bearing no. DL 3C BJ 8394 being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from Mehrauli side and hit his motorcycle. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Center, AIIMS. A case vide FIR no. 183/15 was registered at the police station Mehrauli. The petitioner was 41 years of age. He was doing the work of Garment selling and earning Rs. 15,000/ p.m. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and it was insured with respondent no.3. Suit No. 70/15 : FIR No. : 183/15, PS : Mehrauli Page No.2/10
Bahar Khan Vs. Ravi Sejwal
3. On getting notice of the DAR, all the parties appeared. None of the respondents have filed written statement.
4. This DAR was treated as petition u/s 166 & 140 of the MV Act vide order dated 26.10.2015 and following issues were framed :
1. Whether Bahar Khan sustained injuries in road accident on 19.01.2015 at 1530 hrs. opposite Qutab Minar round about, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle no.
DL 3C BJ 8934 being driven by Ravi Sejwal, owned by Karambir and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd.?
2. To what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom?
3. Relief.
5. The claimant examined himself as PW1. He tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6. Respondents did not examine any witness.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the record. My findings on the issues are as follows :
I S S U E N o. 1
7. It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of the Act is Suit No. 70/15 : FIR No. : 183/15, PS : Mehrauli Page No.3/10 Bahar Khan Vs. Ravi Sejwal 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.
8. PW1 has stated that on 19.01.2015 at about 3.30 PM the petitioner was going to Mehrauli by his motorcycle bearing no. DL 9SZ 8786. When he reached opp. Qutab Minar Circle, Mehrauli, then all of a sudden a car bearing no. DL 3C BJ 8394 being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from Mehrauli side and hit his motorcycle. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Center, AIIMS. The testimony of PW1 remains unrebutted on the aspect of rash and negligent driving. The Investigating Officer alongwith Detailed Accident Report has filed Suit No. 70/15 : FIR No. : 183/15, PS : Mehrauli Page No.4/10 Bahar Khan Vs. Ravi Sejwal the Final Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. FIR, site plan, seizure memos, mechanical inspection report, arrest memo, MLC etc. Perusal of FIR shows that the case was registered on the statement of petitioner himself wherein he has deposed the same facts as stated by him as PW1. As per the mechanical inspection report the vehicle of the petitioner had fresh damages on it. On the MLC history of road traffic accident has been mentioned. Charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.1. Thus, it is established that Bahar Khan sustained injuries in a road accident on 19.01.2015 at 1530 hrs. opposite Qutab Minar round about due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. DL 3C BJ 8934 by respondent no.1. Documents filed on record would show that the vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and it was insured with respondent no.3.
9. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
I S S U E No. 2
10. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.D. 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 pecuniary damages and special Suit No. 70/15 : FIR No. : 183/15, PS : Mehrauli Page No.5/10 Bahar Khan Vs. Ravi Sejwal damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas nonpecuniary 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 ie. 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."
MEDICAL EXPENSES
11. PW1 has stated that immediately after the accident he was taken to Trauma Center, AIIMS where his MLC Ex.PW1/3 was prepared. As per the discharge summary Ex.PW1/4 he was diagnosed with Comminuted Fracture Distal Phalanx Thumb Right Hand. He was discharged on the same day. Thereafter, he also took his treatment from Iqbal Faizy Hospital. In the present case the petitioner has filed medical bills of Rs. 2,900/. I therefore, award Rs. 2,900/ to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
Suit No. 70/15 : FIR No. : 183/15, PS : Mehrauli Page No.6/10
Bahar Khan Vs. Ravi Sejwal PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
12. The claimant after the accident was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Center where his MLC was prepared. As per the MLC the injuries on his person were grievous in nature. Due to the injuries, he suffered lot of pain and agony. Keeping in view the injuries he sustained and the treatment he undergone, I award Rs. 20,000/ to the petitioner towards Pain and Sufferings and Enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES
13. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The injuries were such that he must have taken special diet for early recovery. He remained OPD patient and incurred expenses on conveyance. He would not have performed his ordinary pursuits for quiet some time. Keeping in view these facts, I award Rs. 12,000/ to the petitioner towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
14. PW1 has stated that he was 41 years of age at the time of accident.
He was doing the work of Garment selling and used to earn Rs. 15,000/ p.m. In the present case the petitioner has not filed on record any document with regard to his educational qualification and income. Suit No. 70/15 : FIR No. : 183/15, PS : Mehrauli Page No.7/10
Bahar Khan Vs. Ravi Sejwal Therefore, this Court has no option but to switch to the minimum wages of an 'unskilled person' which on the date of accident were Rs. 8,632/ p.m. The injuries on the person of the claimant were such that he could not do his work two months. Taking the period of two months the loss of income is calculated as Rs. 17,264/ (2 x 8,632) which is rounded off to Rs. 17,300/. I therefore, award Rs. 17,300/ to the claimant towards loss of income.
15. Thus the total compensation in favour of the petitioner is assessed as under :
Medical Expenses : Rs. 2,900/
Pain, sufferings & Enjoyment of Life : Rs. 20,000/
Special Diet, Attendant & Conveyance Charges : Rs. 12,000/
Loss of Income : Rs. 17,300/
============
TOTAL : Rs. 52,200/
============
L I A B I L I T Y
16. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 therefore, primary liability to compensate the claimant remains with that of respondent no. 1. Since the vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 so he becomes vicariously liable to compensate the claimant. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with Suit No. 70/15 : FIR No. : 183/15, PS : Mehrauli Page No.8/10 Bahar Khan Vs. Ravi Sejwal respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually liable to compensate the claimant.
In the instant case no evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance Company to show that there was any breach of insurance policy by the respondent no.2 or respondent no.1 was not having driving licence. Thus, I am of the view that Respondent no.3 is liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
R E L I E F
17. In view of my findings I award a sum of Rs. 52,200/ (Rs. Fifty Two Thousand Two Hundred only) as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR till the date of its realization in favour of the claimant and against the respondent no. 3.
23. Respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the claimant directly to the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch within 30 days from today failing which it shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
24. Respondent no.3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Suit No. 70/15 : FIR No. : 183/15, PS : Mehrauli Page No.9/10 Bahar Khan Vs. Ravi Sejwal Branch in this tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
25. Respondent no.3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant in whose favour the award has been passed.
26. Respondent no.3 shall intimate to the claimant about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
27. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the parties for necessary compliance.
28. The case is now fixed for compliance for 04.01.2016.
Announced in the Open Court
on 30th day of November, 2015 (NAVEEN ARORA)
Presiding Officer : MACT
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 30.11.2015
Suit No. 70/15 : FIR No. : 183/15, PS : Mehrauli Page No.10/10