Delhi District Court
Dinesh Vaid vs . Rajendra Singh & Ors. on 1 March, 2012
Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
1 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT 02
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In Suit No. : 24/10
Sh. Dinesh Vaid
S/o Sh. Jagdish Vaid
In Suit No. : 25/10
Smt. Pratibha Vaid
W/o Sh. Dinesh Vaid
Both Residents of
R/o A108, Dakshinpuri,
New Delhi.
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajinder Singh
S/o late Sh. Amar Singh
R/o 7/245, Dakshinpuri Extn.
New Delhi. (Driver)
2. Superintendent, ( R&I)
GAD, Govt. of Delhi
Delhi Secretariat
I.P. Estate, New Delhi. (Owner)
......Respondents
Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 1/17
Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
2 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
Date of Institution : 07.05.2010
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 15.02.2012
Date of pronouncement : 01.03.2012
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 the road accident which occurred on 24.06.2009 at about 8.00 AM near BRT stand, Krishi Vihar, New Delhi whereby the petitioners have claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by them.
2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts leading to the above stated petitions are that on 24.06.2009 at about 8.00 AM, the petitioners were going to gas agency, Krishi Vihar through BRT corridor on a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL9SP9196. Dinesh Vaid was driving the motor cycle and Smt. Pratibha Vaid was the pillion rider . Infront of the BRT bus stand, they took right turn . Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 2/17
Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
3 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
All of a sudden a car bearing registration no. DL 3FAS0011 being driven by respondent no.1 rashly and negligently came from behind and hit their motorcycle. Due to the forceful impact, they fell down on the road and sustained injuries. They were removed to JPN Apex Trauma Centre, New Delhi where their MLCs were prepared. A case was registered vide FIR 223/09 at the police station Hauz Khas ( South Delhi). It was stated that the vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 .
3. Notice of the petitions was given to the respondents.
4. Both the respondents contested the petitions and filed their written statements. The respondent no.1 denied that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner or at a high speed. He stated that he was driving the vehicle in a careful manner observing all the traffic rules. He had a valid driving license and permit to drive the offending vehicle. It was stated by the respondent no. 2 that the claim of the petitioners is false and frivolous . The petitioners suddenly turned to the right . Because of the heavy load of the cylinder, he could not control the motorcycle and fell down . It was alleged that the motorcycle was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the petitioner Dinesh Vaid.
Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 3/17
Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
4 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
5. Vide order dated 24.11.2010 both the petitions were consolidated and the petition titled "Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors" was treated as the main petition.
6. From the pleadings following issues were framed vide order dated 16.09.2010:
1. Whether the petitioners Dinesh Vaid and Pratibha Vaid received injuries in the road accident on 24.06.2009 at about 8 AM due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL3FAS0011, being driven / owned by Respondent No.1 and owned by Respondent no.2?
2. To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. Parties were thereafter, called upon to substantiate their case by leading their evidence.
8. The petitioner Sh. Dinesh Vaid appeared in the witness box and tendered his Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 4/17 Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
5 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
affidavit Ex. PW1/1 in evidence. He filed the certified copy of the criminal record and the discharge summary reiterating the facts as stated in the petitions. He stated that they were going to gas agency Krishi Vihar through BRT Corridor. When they reached in front of BRT Bus Stand , he took right turn but in the meantime, the car came at a high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit their motorcycle. They fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Their motorcycle was also damaged. He stated that he had been working as purchase manager with IRIS Computer Ltd and drawing a salary of Rs. 30,000/. Because of the accident, he lost the job. He suffered head injuries and according to doctor, he can have complication like severe headache. He stated that the case was registered vide FIR No. 223/09 . He filed the documents Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/M. He stated that he is graduate. He is not aware that carrying cylinder on a bike is violation of traffic rules. He denied that the accident took place due to his own negligence. PW2 Pratibha Vaid also tendered her affidavit Ex. PW2/A, the documents Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/L and deposed on the lines of PW1. She stated that she also sustained injuries. She was self employed and earning Rs. 15,000/ per month. She could not work for long . Petitioners also examined PW3 Sh. Jai Raj Singh, Asstt. Manager , IRIS Computers Ltd . He stated that Dinesh Vaid had been working in his company on a salary of Rs. Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 5/17
Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
6 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
27,500/ . Due to the accident he remained on leave without pay from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009. He proved the salary slip Ex. PW3/1 and attendance record Ex. PW3/2 .
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Prem Chand on behalf of the petitioners and Sh. P.K. Bhardwaj for the respondents and perused the record.
10. My findings on the issues are as under : I S S U E N O. 1
11. 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 Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 6/17 Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
7 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
12. PW1 has stated that he and his wife i.e PW2 were going to gas agency at Krishi Vihar through BRT corridor on a motorcycle bearing no. DL9SP9196. In front of BRT Bus Stand, when they took right turn, a car bearing number DL 3FAS0011 came at a high speed being driven in rash and negligent manner and hit their motorcycle as a result of which they fell down and sustained injuries. Their motorcycle was also damaged. They were taken to JPN Apex Trauma Centre, where their MLCs. were prepared.
13. PW2 also deposed on the lines of PW1 and stated that she sustained injuries on her leg and other parts of body. In this case the accident information report was also filed by SHO after registration of case FIR No. 223/09 at PS Hauz Khas. It contains the FIR. Perusal of it reveals that the case was registered on the statement of PW2 Smt. Pratibha Vaid wherein she had stated the same facts as deposed by them. The mechanical inspection report of the vehicle also shows that the there were fresh damages on both the vehicles. Perusal of site plan filed alongwith accident information report reveals that the accident had occurred at Bus stand BRT Corridor. The petitioners were crossing the road on their motorcycle from Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 7/17 Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
8 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
zebra crossing near the bus stand which place was not meant for taking turn. The offending car was also coming on the wrong lane. There is nothing to indicate that the car was permitted to come on the Bus Corridor. The petitioners were carrying a gas cylinder on the motorcycle. Looking into their testimony and other facts, I am of the view that it is the case of contributory negligence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I take the negligence of the petitioners as 30% and that of respondent no.1 as 70%.
14. It is therefore, established that the accident had occurred partially due to negligence of the petitioners and partially due to negligence of respondent no. 1. It has come on record that the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending car which was belonged to respondent no. 2. Thus, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. I S S U E No. 2
15. The petitioners have claimed compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by them. In a road accident a person is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.
16. 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: Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 8/17 Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
9 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
"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 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."
COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED ON MEDICAL TREATMENT :
In Petition No. 24/10
17. The petitioner Dinesh Vaid has stated that in the accident he sustained severe head injury. He was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Center. He filed the MLC and the discharge summary . Perusal of it reveals that he had Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 9/17 Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
10 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
subarachnoid hemorrhage and injury on his head . He was discharged after three days. He was advised medicines and to follow Neurosurgery OPD .Discharge summary shows that he could have complications like severe headache, meningitis and hydrocephalus . He followed up his treatment till 19.11.2009. In this case petitioner did not file any medical bill but looking into the injuries and his follow up treatment, I award Rs. 5,000/ to the petitioner on account of medical expenses. In Petition No.25/10
18. From the MLC and the discharge summary, I find that she had swelling on her shoulder. The injuries on her person were simple. She was discharged on the same day. In this case she did not file any medical bill. Considering the injuries, I award Rs. 1,000/ to the petitioner on account of medical expenses.
In Petition No. 24/10 COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
19. The petitioner Dinesh Vaid remained hospitalised for three days. He had Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 10/17 Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
11 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
severe head injuries. He was advised medicines. The possibility of future complications like severe headache, meningitis and hydrocephalus was not ruled out by the doctors. He remained as an OPD patient till November 2009. The injuries had given him lot of pain and agony. He could not go to his place of work for three months as is evident from the testimony of PW3. Taking into consideration all these facts, I award a sum of Rs. 30,000/ to the petitioner Dinesh Vaid towards pain and suffering and enjoyment of life. In Petition No. 25/10
20. The petitioner Pratibha Vaid sustained minor injuries. She was discharged on the same day of accident. There is nothing to indicate that after the accident she followed up her treatment. Looking into the injuries,I award Rs. 7,000/ to the petitioner Pratibha Vaid towards pain and suffering and enjoyment of life.
In Petition No. 24/10 COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT CHARGES AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES :
21. The petitioner Dinesh Vaid remained hospitalised for three days. He had severe head injuries. He was advised medicines. The possibility of future complications like severe headache, meningitis and hydrocephalus was Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 11/17 Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
12 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
opined by the doctors. He continued his treatment as an OPD patient till November 2009. He was advised rich diet and protein for early recovery. He might have taken the help of attendant in his day to day work. Taking into consideration all these facts, I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioner Dinesh Vaid on account of special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. In Petition No. 24/10 COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF INCOME :
22. The petitioner Dinesh Vaid has stated that after the accident he was taken to hospital where he remained admitted for three days. He could not go to his office for three months . Petitioner also examined PW3 Sh. Jai Raj Singh, Asstt. Manager , IRIS Computers Ltd . He has stated that Dinesh Vaid has been working in his company on a salary of Rs. 27,500/ . As per attendance record , he remained on leave without pay from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009.
He proved the salary slip Ex. PW3/1 and attendance record Ex. PW3/2 .
23. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, I award a sum of Rs.82,500/ (27,500x3) to the petitioner Dinesh Vaid towards Loss of Income.
Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 12/17
Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
13 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
In Petition No. 25/10
24. PW2 has stated that she was self employed and used to earn Rs. 15,000/ but because of accident, she could not work for a long time. However, she did not file any proof as to how she suffered loss on account of accident. Looking into injuries and the circumstances, I award a sum of Rs. 5,000/ to the petitioner, Pratibha Vaid for loss of income.
25. Thus, the total compensation awarded in favour of the petitioners is assessed as under : Petition No. 24/10 25/10 Medical Expenses : Rs. 5,000/ 1,000/ Pain and Sufferings & Enjoyment of Life : Rs. 30,000/ 7,000/ Special Diet, Attendant & Conveyance : Rs. 10,000/ Loss of Income : Rs. 82,500/ 5,000/ ========= ======= TOTAL : Rs. 1,27,500/ 13,000/ ========= ======= Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 13/17 Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
14 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
L I A B I L I T Y
26. 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.2, therefore, it becomes vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the offending vehicle was not insured.
27. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent no. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners jointly and severally.
R E L I E F In Petition no. 24/10 & 25/10
28. In view of my findings on issues being a case of contributory negligence ( 70% of 1,27,500/) I award a sum of Rs.89,250/ to the petitioner Sh Dinesh Vaid and Rs. 9100/ (70% of Rs. 13,000/) to the petitioner Pratibha Vaid as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petitions till realization of the amount. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 14/17
Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
15 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
29. 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 08.06.20009, UCO Bank/ State Bank of India has agreed to open an Account for the victims of road accidents.
30. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in the savings account by Hon'ble high Court, Respondent no. 2 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. within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent No. 2 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
31. The respondent no. 2 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
32. It shall intimate to the claimants / petitioners about its having deposited the cheques in favor of the petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 15/17
Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
16 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
33. 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 respondent no.2.
34. Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to counsel for the respondents for necessary compliance.
35. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
On 01st Day of March, 2012 (SANJIV JAIN )
P.O. : MACTII : SOUTH DISTT.
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
01.03.2012
Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 16/17
Dinesh Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
17 Pratibha Vaid Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.
In Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10
01.03.2012
Present: Ld. Counsel for the parties.
Vide separate order of even date a compensation of Rs. 89,250/ to petitioner Dinesh Vaid and Rs. 9100/ to petitioner Pratibha Vaid with interest @9% is passed.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN) PO : MACT02 : SOUTH DISTRICT 01.03.2012 Suit No. 24/10 and 25/10 17/17