Delhi District Court
Sh. Vijay S/O Late Sh. Adghr John vs Sh. Sourabh Tyagi S/O Sh. Ishwar on 19 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI CHANDRA BOSE : JUDGE :
MACT : DELHI
MACT NO. : 357/11
UNIQUE ID NO. : 02404C0301332011
Sh. Vijay s/o Late Sh. Adghr John
r/o WZ298 Tilak Vihar Colony, Tilak Nagar
Delhi18
.........Claimant
Versus
1. Sh. Sourabh Tyagi S/o Sh. Ishwar
r/o Vill. Finypur Teh. Khekhra Distt. Baghpat, UP
2. M/s Devyani Internation Ltd.
F2/7, Okhla Indl. Area, PhaseI, New Delhi20
3.The New India Assurance co. Ltd.
18/78, Kaltron Chamber, Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi5
.......Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 24.09.11
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGEMENT : 13.04.12
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.04.12
A W A R D
1. Fresh DAR was filed by the IO after collecting all 357/11 1 Of 6 the relevant evidence/material on 24.09.11 which was converted into claim petition U/s 166(4) of M.V. Act and was registered as claim petition. Legal offer was filed on behalf of insurance co. on 23.03.12 which was not acceptable to counsel for injured and therefore, today I heard arguments on the point of quantum of compensation and on the point whether injured also contributed to the accident. It is stated in the legal offer that injured was crossing the road without obeying traffic rules and was hit by the offending motorcycle and insurance co. on this point has considered 50% contributory negligence of injured and calculated the compensation as mentioned in the legal offer. After having considered 50% contributory negligence on the part of injured, insurance co. has offered Rs. 20,000/ in respect of pain and suffering
2. Considering the nature of injury, period of admission in hospital and period of treatment of injured, I am of the view that if injured is granted Rs. 60,000/ in respect of pain and suffering, it would meet the end of justice. Therefore, he is granted Rs. 60,000/ in respect of pain and suffering.
3. The amount of medical bills on perusal and consideration, comes to Rs. 62,289/. Therefore, injured 357/11 2 Of 6 should be granted Rs. 62,289/ in respect of medical expenses. Insurance co. has offered Rs. 4000/ as special diet having considered 50% contributory negligence of injured. Therefore, considering this fact, I am of the view that if it is considered that injured was not negligent, Rs. 8000/ should be granted as special diet.
4. Insurance co. has offered Rs. 5000/ as conveyance expenses having considered 50% contributory negligence of injured. Therefore, considering this fact, I am of the view that if it is considered that injured was not negligent, Rs. 10,000/ should be granted as conveyance charges.
5. Considering the nature of injuries, I am of the view that attendant was required. If it is accepted that injured had been attended by family members, I am of the view that injured should be granted attendant charges. Therefore, a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/ is granted as attendant charges.
6. Injured has availed total leaves of 179 days for his treatment. As per case laws namely "Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs Ganeshwar Sharma and another, 2001 ACJ 931 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Shyam Kumar and others, 2006 ACJ 2092" injured is entitled to 357/11 3 Of 6 receive salary for leave period. Therefore, injured should be granted in respect of loss of leaves of 179 days which is about 6 months. The amount of Rs. 17,000/ is taken as loss in case injured would have availed so much leaves in future without pay. Counsel for insurance co. has also agreed to it. Therefore, I am of the view that Rs.1,02,000/ (17,000*6) is granted on account of availing leaves.
7. In view of the above, total compensation head wise payable to claimant is as under :
1. Compensation for pain & sufferings : 60,000/
2. Compensation for expenses incurred on : 62,289/ medical treatment
3. Compensation for special diet : 8,000/
4. Compensation for conveyance charges : 10,000/
5. Compensation for Attendant Charges : 10,000/
6. Compensation on account of availing of : 1,02,000/ leaves.
Total : 2,52,289/ 357/11 4 Of 6
8. Now, I considered the submission of counsel for injured and counsel for insurance co. whether injured was also negligent or not for accident. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for insurance co. that injured was crossing the road against traffic rules as there was no zebra crossing at the place of accident. It is further submitted that act and conduct of the injured was also negligent and therefore, 50% should be considered as contributory negligence of injured. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for injured submits that injured was not negligent at all and driver of the offending vehicle was entirely negligent. On perusal of photocopy of site plan, it is found that there is no zebra crossing where injured was crossing the road. Therefore, I am of the the view accident could have been avoided, if injured would have used Zebra crossing situated at the chowk but he was not negligent to the extent of 50% as submitted by Ld. counsel for insurance co. Considering the facts and circumstances which led to accident, I am of the view that 15% negligence on the part of injured should be considered. Therefore, 15% is deducted from the total amount of compensation in respect of contributory negligence.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I hereby hold 357/11 5 Of 6 that the injured is entitled to the amount of Rs.2,14,446/ (2,52,289 15% of 2,52,289) to be paid by insurance co. within 40 days of today.
10. As such insurance co. is directed to deposit the cheque of the said amount in the name of injured Vijay within 40 days from today with this Tribunal, and in case of delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for delayed period.
11. Copy of this order be given to parties for compliance. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
ANNOUNCED in the OPEN COURT (CHANDRA BOSE)
On 19.04.12 JUGE/MACT/ROHINI
DELHI
357/11 6 Of 6