Delhi District Court
At Present vs Shri Devender Singh Rawat on 19 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJLI GOEL, PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL2, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No. 25/14
Date of Institution: 18.01.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Mathew Jammimthing Baite
S/o Shri Ngamyang Baite
Sugnu (T), Chakpikarong
Chandel, Manipur.
At Present:
H/No. 265, Ground Floor
Munirka Village
New Delhi 110061. .......Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Devender Singh Rawat
S/o Shri Rajinder Singh Rawat
R/o Awas Vikas Parishad
VPO Vikareh
Tehsil Vikash, District Almora
Uttranchal.
2. M/s Highway Tourist Corporation
17, Andrews Ganj Market
New Delhi110049.
Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 1 of 31
Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Divisional Office: 310600
4th Floor, Bajaj House
97 Nehru Place
New Delhi 110019. ...Respondents
Final Arguments heard : 26.07.2014 Award reserved for : 19.08.2014 Date of Award : 19.08.2014 AWARD
1. Vide this judgmentcumaward, I proceed to decide petition filed u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as amended uptodate (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of compensation in a road accident arising out of the same accident.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 08.05.2013, the petitioner, along with his four friends, was going to New Delhi Railway Station by TSR No. DL1RL1612. Upon reaching the traffic junction at Sector1, R. K. Puram, the TSR halted at the traffic signal due to the red signal during which period, the driver of one white coloured bus bearing No.DL1PB4344 hit the vehicle Tavera Car UP81AF5145 which was standing in front of the offending vehicle. It is averred that the said offending vehicle in turn dashed into the TSR No.DL1RL1612 standing in front of the offending vehicle. It is averred that at the time of the accident, the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 2 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar in a very high speed and rash manner and it was driven in violation of the traffic rules, as a result of it the petitioner suffered injuries and one of the passengers, namely, Angom Binita, suffered fatal injuries and died on the way to the hospital. It is stated that in respect of the accident FIR No.147/13 under Sections 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS R. K. Puram on 09.05.2013. It is averred that the petitioner was medically examined at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi vide MLC No.366267 dated 09.05.2013 and the petitioner underwent treatment in different hospitals from time to time and spent a substantial amount on the treatment. It is averred that the petitioner was treated since the date of the accident till date and Rs.5,000/ was spent on his treatment. It is averred that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.DL1PB4344 and the negligence on the part of the respondent No.1 is clear and unmistakable. It is averred that the offending vehicle i.e. Tata Bus DL1PB4344 was being driven by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and it was insured with the respondent No.3, thus the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the injured. It is stated that the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies in the case and it is for the respondent driver to prove that he was not negligent at the time of driving the vehicle involved in the accident.
Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 3 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar
3. It is averred that the petitioner is aged about 31 years and working with Global Tech Xpert, Munirka, New Delhi and earning Rs.25,000/ p.m. It is averred that the petitioner has been doing part time jobs as a means of livelihood and those are the only way he can sustain his family which consists of his wife and two children. It is averred that as a result of the accident the petitioner sustained injuries due to which his career prospects in the future had been jeopardized. It is averred that serious consequences were suffered by the petitioner amounting to emotional suffering, sorrow, mental agony, etc. It is averred that the petitioner is therefore entitled to claim compensation and/or damages of Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees five lacs only) as due to the sudden accident, the petitioner has suffered emotional pain, mental anguish and restlessness for a long period and still does; the petitioner received lacerated wound due to the accident, and had to undergo treatment and incur costs; the petitioner suffered a severe shock due to the incident and he was unable to proceed with his life in a normal and healthy way. As such, the petitioner was unable to maintain his livelihood. It is averred that in addition to personal loss, the accident had caused suffering, misery and mental tension to the petitioner. It is averred that the petitioner has spent a substantial amount on account of travelling during the injury period. It is averred that the petitioner has been crippled and lost the joy of having the company of the deceased. The loss of the petitioner on many accounts is aggravated by the fact that he cannot pursue a career or vocation freely and without physical hindrance; or continue with his life without any mental agony or conflict. It is averred that the petitioner Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 4 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar has since been crippled and his future prospects have been severely minimized by the accident at the age of 31 years which comes with additional trauma. It is prayed that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ be awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
4. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 taking the preliminary objections that there is no cause of action in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents No.1 and 2 and the petition has been filed to extract compensation from the respondents No.1 and 2 and other respondents. It is averred that there is no fault on the part of the respondent No.1 in the alleged accident and it is the injured/driver of the TSR who failed to follow the rules and regulations of the traffic and in case he was following the same the accident would not have occurred. It is averred that the complainant was the driver and could only carry 3 persons in the TSR but he was carrying 6 persons which was against the law. It is averred that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the court. It is averred that the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties. It is averred that the alleged offending vehicle is duly insured with the respondent No.3 so the respondent No.3 is only liable to pay the compensation, if any, to the petitioner and the respondents No.1 and 2 have no right, title or interest for the same. It is averred that the vehicle was insured at the time of the incident and the permit of the vehicle is also valid, fitness is Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 5 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar also valid, driving license is also valid and all the documents have been verified and found to be true and correct. It is averred that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle as the accident occurred at Red Light R. K. Puram, New Delhi. The averments made were denied. It is averred that the vehicle was insured with New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy No.31060031120100002493 valid from 12.07.2012 to 11.07.2013, and was valid at the time of the accident.
5. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioner to the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 denying the preliminary objections and reiterating and reaffirming the averments made in the claim petition. It was denied that the injured/ driver of the TSR failed to follow the rules and regulations of the traffic. It is averred that the petitioner has mentioned all the true and correct facts and records. It is denied that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle.
6. Written statement/ offer was filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 averring that the petitioner has sustained simple injury in the accident. It is averred that the vehicle bearing registration No. DL1PB4344 was insured with the company vide policy No.31060031120100002493 valid from 12.07.2012 to 11.07.2013. It is averred that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital namely Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Center, New Delhi on 09.05.2013. As per the MLC, the injury was simple. It is averred that as per the report submitted by the IO six persons were travelling in the TSR thus, contributing to Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 6 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar the injuries suffered by them. The reasonable amount of compensation offered after taking into consideration all the facts/documents supplied by IO was Rs. 5,000/.
7. Initially Detailed Accident Report was filed by the IO on 20.9.2013 and thereafter the claim petition was filed on 18.1.2014. On 15.2.2014 it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offer of settlement as made was not acceptable. From the pleadings of the parties, the following consolidated issues were framed vide order dated 15.02.2014:
1.Whether the petitioner/injured sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on
08.05.2013 at about 22 hrs. near Red Light, Sector1, R. K. Puram, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DL1PB4344 driven by respondent No.1, Devender Singh Rawat and owned by respondent No.2, Highway Travels and insured by respondent No.3, The New India Assurance Company Ltd.? OPP.
2.Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
8. The petitioner appeared as PW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A reiterating the averments made in the claim Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 7 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar petition. He deposed that he was working at Global Techxpert Pvt. Ltd. and getting salary of Rs.21,000/ at the time of the accident. He stated that he had to stay at home as unemployed because of the accident and he suffered economic loss. Thereafter he quit his job as he could not go for the job because of the accident. Copy of FIR is Ex.PW1/A, copy of the Bank Pass Book is Ex.PW1/B and the copy of MLC, marriage certificate and education certificates are Ex.PW1/C (colly). PE was closed on 22.3.2014.
9. The respondent No.1 entered into the witness box as R1W1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.R1W1/A. He deposed that he was driving the bus bearing No.DL1PB4344 with a valid driving license on the date of the accident along with a valid permit. He stated that the vehicle bearing registration No.DL1PB4344 was insured with M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vide policy No.31060031120100002493 valid from 12.07.2012 to 11.07.2013. He stated that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the court. He stated that on the date of the accident he was driving the vehicle bearing No.DL1PB4344 at normal speed by obeying the traffic rule and regulation. He stated that before reaching at the traffic junction at sector1, R. K. Puram, Delhi, all of a sudden a TSR bearing No.DL1RL1612 came in front of his vehicle from the right side, to avoid the collision he put the brake and turned the vehicle to the left side of the road but could not avoid the accident and hit the right back side of the Tavera car bearing No.UP81AF5145. He stated that Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 8 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar the said offending Tavera vehicle in turn dashed into the TSR bearing No.DL1RL1612, then again the said TSR vehicle hit the offending bus. He stated that at the time of the accident all the vehicles were moving and were trying to stop the vehicles as ahead there was red light at Sector1, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. He stated that it was the driver of the TSR vehicle No.DL1RL1612 who had actually contributed to the accident. He stated that the petitioner was travelling in TSR vehicle with 6 persons including the driver at the time of accident. He stated that the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties as the petitioner had not made the owner, driver and insurer of the Tavera Car bearing No.UP8AF5145 parties which in turn dashed into the TSR No.DL1RL1612 in which all the petitioners were travelling. He stated that he is not liable to pay compensation as there was no negligence on his part at the time of the accident. RE was closed on 19.4.2014.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsels for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and perused the record. The petitioner was also examined on 17.05.2014 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court on 17.05.2014 in MACA No.792/2006 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ranjit Pandey and Ors.
11. My findings on the specific issues are as under:
Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 9 of 31
Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar ISSUE NO.1
12. As the petition has been filed u/s 166 M.V Act it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that he sustained injuries in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle it has been held in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pushpa Rana & Another 2009 Accident Claims Journal 287 as follows:
"The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents/claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V. Meena Variyal (supra). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced:(i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of offending vehicle (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on part of the driver."Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 10 of 31
Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar It is established law that in a claim petition under Motor Vehicle Act, the standard of proof to establish rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle is not at par with the criminal case where such rashness and negligence is required to be proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. In Kaushnamma Begum and others v. New India Assurance Company Limited, it was inter alia held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injury or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
13. The case of the petitioner is that on 08.05.2013, the petitioner, along with his four friends, was going to New Delhi Railway Station by TSR No.DL1RL1612. Upon reaching the traffic junction at Sector1, R. K. Puram, the TSR halted at the traffic signal due to the red signal during which period, the driver of one white coloured bus bearing No.DL1PB4344 hit the vehicle Tavera Car UP81AF5145 which was standing in front of the offending vehicle. It was stated that the said offending vehicle in turn dashed into the TSR No.DL1RL1612 standing in front of the offending vehicle. It was averred that at the time of the accident, the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle in a very high speed and rash manner and it was driven in violation of the traffic rules, as a result of it the petitioner suffered injuries and one of the Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 11 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar passengers, namely, Angom Binita, suffered fatal injuries and died on the way to the hospital. It was stated that in respect of the accident FIR No.147/13 under Sections 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS R. K. Puram on 09.05.2013. In paras 2 and 3 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A the petitioner had reiterated the mode and manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition.
14. The IO had filed the DAR on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner comprising of the criminal record consisting of copy of charge sheet, copy of MLC, copy of PAN card of the petitioner, copy of FIR No.147/2013 under sections 279/337/304A IPC, PS R.K. Puram, copy of site plan, copy of seizure memos, copy of mechanical inspection report of the TATA Bus No.DL1PB4344 and of the Tavera No.UP81AF5145 and of TSR No.DL1RL1612 (copy there in suit No.32/14), copy of verification report of the RC of the offending bus, copy of the permit of the offending bus along with its verification report as also of the fitness certificate, copy of insurance policy of the offending bus and verification report in respect of the DL of the respondent No.1. As per the FIR No.147/2013 under sections 279/337/304A IPC, PS R.K. Puram the case was registered on the basis of complaint of Mohd. Habil who was the driver of the TSR in which the petitioner was travelling wherein he has stated the manner in which the accident had taken place. As per the charge sheet respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under sections 279/337/304A IPC and Sections 6/177 MV Act. Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 12 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar
15. The respondents No.1 and 2 had filed their reply averring that there is no fault on the part of the respondent No.1 in the alleged accident and it is the injured/driver of the TSR who failed to follow the rules and regulations of the traffic and in case he was following the same the accident would not have occurred. It was averred that the complainant was the driver and could only carry 3 persons in the TSR but he was carrying 6 persons which was against the law. It was averred that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle as the accident occurred at Red Light R. K. Puram, New Delhi. The respondent No.1 had also appeared in the witness box as R1W1 and deposed that on the date of the accident he was driving the bus bearing No.DL1PB4344 at normal speed by obeying the traffic rule and regulation. He stated that before reaching at the traffic junction at sector1, R. K. Puram, Delhi, all of a sudden a TSR bearing No.DL1RL1612 came in front of his vehicle from the right side, to avoid the collision he put the brake and turned the vehicle to the left side of the road but could not avoid the accident and hit the right back side of the Tavera car bearing No.UP81AF5145. He stated that the said offending Tavera vehicle in turn dashed into the TSR bearing No.DL1RL1612, then again the said TSR vehicle hit the offending bus. He stated that at the time of the accident all the vehicles were moving and were trying to stop the vehicles as ahead there was red light at Sector1, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. He stated that it was the driver of the TSR vehicle No.DL1RL1612 who had actually contributed to the accident. He stated that the petitioner was travelling in TSR vehicle with 6 persons including the driver Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 13 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar at the time of accident. He stated that the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties as the petitioner had not made the owner, driver and insurer of the Tavera Car bearing No.UP8AF5145 parties which in turn dashed into the TSR No.DL1RL1612 in which all the petitioners were travelling. He stated that there was no negligence on his part at the time of the accident.
16. It is thus seen that according to the FIR the TSR was standing at the red light, the offending bus hit a Tavera car bearing No.UP81AF5145 standing in front of it, then the bus hit the TSR which struck against a Track (ought to be a truck) standing in front of it and then again the bus hit the TSR due to which the TSR was badly damaged and the driver of the bus escaped leaving the bus at the spot. As per the petitioner the TSR halted at the traffic signal due to the red signal during which period, the driver of one white coloured bus bearing No.DL1PB4344 hit the vehicle Tavera Car UP81AF5145 which was standing in front of the offending vehicle. It was stated that the said offending vehicle in turn dashed into the TSR No.DL1RL1612 standing in front of the offending vehicle. As per the respondent No.1 the vehicles had still not stopped at the red light and were moving and R1W1 had stated that before reaching at the traffic junction at sector1, R. K. Puram, Delhi, all of a sudden a TSR bearing No.DL1RL1612 came in front of his vehicle from the right side, to avoid the collision he put the brake and turned the vehicle to the left side of the road but could not avoid the Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 14 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar accident and hit the right back side of the Tavera car bearing No.UP81AF5145 which in turn dashed into the TSR bearing No.DL1RL1612, then again the said TSR vehicle hit the offending bus.
17. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 PW1 admitted that they were more than 6 persons in the TSR. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 PW1 stated that he was going to New Delhi Railway Station from Munirka at the time of the accident. He stated that it was not a prepaid TSR. He stated that they were stopping at the red light of SectorI, R.K. Puram when the accident took place. He denied the suggestion that the TSR in which he was travelling was going in a zigzag manner at a high speed or that the driver of the TSR applied sudden brake due to which the accident took place and he sustained injuries. He stated that the auto was going at normal speed and the accident took place the moment they stopped at the red light. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the TSR or that the bus in question did not hit the TSR and was not involved in the accident. Thus PW1 admitted that they were more than 6 persons in the TSR. PW1 stated that he was going to New Delhi Railway Station from Munirka at the time of the accident. He stated that they were stopping at the red light of SectorI, R.K. Puram when the accident took place. He stated that the auto was going at normal speed and the accident took place the moment they stopped at the red light and thus he reiterated that the Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 15 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar accident had taken place when they stopped at the red light. A suggestion was put to PW1 that the bus in question did not hit the TSR and was not involved in the accident which he denied but that is not the case of the respondents No.1 and 2 either.
18. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 R1W1 stated that he is illiterate. He had stated that he has a DL which is valid for driving a bus and there is even no dispute about the DL of the respondent No.1. R1W1 stated that he was coming from Munirka towards Bhikaji Cama Place and at the red light the Auto came in front of his bus and he tried to brake but could not brake properly and the bus hit the Tavera and the Tavera hit the Auto and thereafter, the bus touched the Auto. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the petitioner R1W1 stated that his bus was at the speed of 2025 k.m./hr at the time of the accident. He admitted that he had slowed the bus further as it was a red light. He denied the suggestion that there are contradictions between his WS and Ex.R1W1/A. He did not remember if there was no mention of the Tavera in the WS. He stated that the Auto had come from the left side in front of his bus. He stated that he had moved the bus to the right side to avoid the Auto which came from the left side. He stated that the Tavera was in front of the bus. He stated that his bus had hit the Tavera which hit the Auto and thereafter, the bus touched the Auto. He admitted that the FIR was lodged against him in respect of the accident. He admitted that the criminal case is pending against him. He denied the Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 16 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar suggestion that the accident had taken place due to his rashness or negligence. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the petitioner Habil Bhatt R1W1 denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to his rashness or negligence or that the TSR was standing at the red light and he had brought the bus with speed which first hit the Tavera and then hit the TSR.
19. R1W1 thus stated that he was coming from Munirka towards Bhikaji Cama Place and at the red light the Auto came in front of his bus and he tried to brake but could not brake properly and the bus hit the Tavera and the Tavera hit the Auto and thereafter, the bus touched the Auto. It is the admitted case of all the parties that the accident had taken place at the red light. It is pertinent that even R1W1 stated that the bus had hit the Tavera and the Tavera hit the Auto and thereafter the bus also touched the Auto which is almost in consonance with what was stated in the FIR and R1W1 had himself also stated about the bus touching the Auto. R1W1 had tried to contend that the auto had come in front of the bus suddenly but no such suggestion was put to PW1. He stated that the Auto had come from the left side in front of his bus and that he had moved the bus to the right side to avoid the Auto which came from the left side. He stated that the Tavera was in front of the bus and his bus had hit the Tavera which hit the Auto and thereafter, the bus touched the Auto. Thus he had reiterated about the bus touching the auto. R1W1 also stated that his bus was at the speed of 2025 k.m./hr at the time of the Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 17 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar accident and that he had slowed the bus further as it was a red light. He did not remember if there was no mention of the Tavera in the WS and in fact it is seen that in the WS it was only stated that the injured/driver of the TSR failed to follow the rules and regulations of the traffic and in case he was following the same the accident would not have occurred and it was nowhere stated how according to the respondents No.1 and 2 the accident had taken place and it was stated for the first time in the affidavit of R1W1.
20. R1W1 admitted that the FIR was lodged against him in respect of the accident. He admitted that the criminal case is pending against him. Further the copy of the charge sheet is on record as per which the respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 279/337/304A IPC. In Basant Kaur and others v. Chattar Pal Singh and others 2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB) it was observed that registration of criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle was enough to record a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident. There is nothing to disprove the involvement of vehicle No.DL1PB4344. In view of the material on record, the negligence of the respondent No.1 has been prima facie proved. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner and the driver of the TSR in that there were 6 persons in the TSR and it is not in dispute that there were 5 passengers and driver in the TSR at the time of the accident. However it is significant that the petitioner was only a passenger in the TSR and even if the Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 18 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar contention of the respondent No.3 were to be accepted it would be a case of composite negligence and three vehicles were involved in the accident though in the FIR there was also mention of a Truck. The law is well settled that the claimants can chose the insurer and insured in respect of the vehicles as tort feasors to recover the compensation amount. In Om Wati & Ors. v. Mohd. Din & Ors. 2001 91 DLT 184 (decided by DB of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi) it was observed:
"Coming to the question of 'apportionment' it seems to us that First Appellate Court was in error in holding that claimants would have to forego 30% share of their awarded compensation in favour of the joint tortfeasors of the truck present before the Court as they had failed to implead tort feasors of the car as partyrespondents in their claim suits. This is because the accident could not be wholly treated to be the result of contributory negligence. Even, if it was assumed that the drivers of the two vehicles contributed to the accident in some measure, the other two deceased who were travelling in the car could not be held responsible for any such negligence. Therefore, it was a case of composite negligence in their case. The principle of composite negligence is that where more than one person are responsible for commission of the wrong, the person wronged has a choice of proceedings against all or any one or more. Any one of the wrong doer is liable for the whole damage if it is otherwise made out. In other words the liability of two sets of tortfeasors becomes both joint and several."
Similar is the position in the present case wherein the petitioner was travelling in the TSR and he would have a choice of proceedings against all or any one Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 19 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar or more. This judgment was referred to by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Raj Pal Kaur & Ors. v. Pawan Gir & Ors. CM(C)1187/2013 decided on 30.10.2013 and it was held that the FIR was registered against the truck driver and the petitioners/ claimants had rightly sought relief against the said vehicle. In the present case as well the FIR had been registered against the respondent No.1, the driver of the bus and the present petition has been filed seeking relief against the said bus.
21. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 748, held: "6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence."
Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 20 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar Thus it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In the present case the petitioner has proceeded only against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending bus.
22. It was stated that due to the accident the petitioner suffered injuries and one of the passengers, namely, Angom Binita, suffered fatal injuries and died on the way to the hospital. It was stated that the petitioner was medically examined at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi vide MLC No.366267 dated 09.05.2013 and the petitioner underwent treatment in different hospitals from time to time. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner to be simple. Thus it stands established that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the alleged accident. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No.2
23. Since issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioner he would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Act. The law is well settled that the compensation has to be awarded in personal injury cases under the following heads: (1) for loss of earnings during the period Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 21 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar of treatment (2) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (3) expenses suffered by him on his treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food etc. In addition, he is further entitled to non pecuniary damages/general damages which include (1) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries and (2) loss of expectation of life.
MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT
24. The case of the petitioner is that as a result of the accident on 8.5.2013 he suffered injuries and was medically examined at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi vide MLC No.366267 dated 09.05.2013 and he underwent treatment in different hospitals from time to time and spent a substantial amount on the treatment. It was stated that the petitioner was treated since the date of the accident till date and Rs.5,000/ was spent on his treatment. PW1 in paras 3, 4 and 7 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. He stated that he had received a lacerated wound and had to undergo treatment and also suffered a severe shock and was unable to proceed with his life in a normal and healthy way. Medical record is Ex.PW1/C (colly). The MLC of the petitioner is on record as per which the petitioner had sustained laceration over right upper lid and it shows the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner to be simple. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability.
Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 22 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar
25. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 PW1 stated that due to the accident, he suffered injuries on the chest and the back and he was still under medication and unable to work properly. He stated that he had spent Rs.5000/ on the medical expenses volunteered he did not have any bill of the same. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 PW1 stated that no doctor had advised bed rest for two months volunteered he was under medication and he had to remain on bed rest due to the injuries. Thus PW1 stated that due to the accident, he suffered injuries on the chest and the back and he was still under medication and unable to work properly but there is nothing to show the same. He stated that he had spent Rs.5000/ on the medical expenses but he himself volunteered he did not have any bill of the same and even no bill has been placed on record. PW1 stated that no doctor had advised bed rest for two months volunteered he was under medication and he had to remain on bed rest due to the injuries and thus he himself stated that no doctor had advised bed rest for two months. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability due to the accident. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner had sustained injuries. The petitioner has not filed any bills in respect of the alleged expenditure on medicines. However the petitioner would have incurred some expenditure on his treatment. Looking to the nature of the injuries the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs.2,000/ (Rs.Two Thousand only) towards medical treatment and expenses.
Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 23 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar
26. Note can also be taken of the fact that on account of the accident the petitioner may not have been able to perform his day to day duties towards his family and may not have been able to enjoy the amenities of life and would have undergone pain and suffering. No document has been placed on record regarding expenditure on conveyance, special diet or attendant charges. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 PW1 denied the suggestion that he had falsely claimed towards transportation. However there is nothing to show any expenditure on these counts. There is also nothing to show that the injuries of the petitioner were such that he might have to incur extra expenditure on conveyance or on attendant charges. However it can be taken note of the fact that he might have had to take a special diet for a few days.
LOSS OF INCOME
27. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of the accident he was aged about 31 years and working with Global Tech Xpert, Munirka, New Delhi and earning Rs.25,000/ p.m. It was stated that the petitioner had been doing part time jobs as a means of livelihood and those were the only way he could sustain his family which consists of his wife and two children. It was averred that as a result of the accident the petitioner sustained injuries due to which his career prospects in the future had been jeopardized and he was unable to maintain his livelihood. It was averred that the loss of the petitioner Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 24 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar on many accounts was aggravated by the fact that he could not pursue a career or vocation freely and without physical hindrance; or continue with his life without any mental agony or conflict and that he had since been crippled and his future prospects had been severely minimized by the accident at the age of 31 years which comes with additional trauma. PW1 deposed that he was working at Global Techxpert Pvt. Ltd. and getting salary of Rs.21,000/ at the time of the accident. He stated that he had to stay at home as unemployed because of the accident and he suffered economic loss. Thereafter he quit his job as he could not go for the job because of the accident. Copy of the Bank Pass Book is Ex.PW1/B and the copy of MLC, marriage certificate and education certificates are Ex.PW1/C (colly).
28. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 PW1 stated that at present, he is residing at Munirka. He stated that he works in a call centre. He stated that he had not filed any document to show that he was working at a call centre. He stated that his salary is Rs.20,000/ but most of the times he gets Rs.25,000/ per month. He stated that he had not filed any Salary Certificate volunteered he had placed on record his bank statement. He stated that he had to take leave of two months from his office due to the injuries. He stated that he was not paid salary for the said two months. He stated that he had not filed any document to show that he did not get salary for two months. He denied the suggestion that he had made an exaggerated claim of Rs.5,00,000/. He stated that he is Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 25 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar married and his wife was not working. Thus PW1 stated that he works in a call centre though he had not filed any document to show that he was working at a call centre. He stated that his salary is Rs.20,000/ but most of the times he gets Rs.25,000/ per month but he had not filed any Salary Certificate volunteered he had placed on record his bank statement. As such PW1 had not filed any document to show where he was working and even the salary certificate was not filed though he had placed on record his bank statement. A perusal of the bank statement shows that the petitioner had received a salary of Rs.20,000/ on 9.3.2013 and thereafter he received Rs.21,000/ on 10.4.2013. However the breakup of the same is not available. The petitioner had stated that he quit his job as he could not go for the job because of the accident. However the petitioner has not produced any witness or document to establish that he had to quit his job on account of not being able to join his duty due to the injuries sustained in the accident. During his examination by the Tribunal the petitioner stated that at the time of the accident he was working in BPO and he was earning Rs.20,000/ but including the overtime, he was earning Rs.25,000/ p.m. He stated that at present he was not working anywhere. He stated that he did not get any disability but he was still unable to sit for long. However there is nothing on the record to show that the same was due to the injuries sustained in the accident or that he was not working at present on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 26 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar
29. The petitioner had also contended that he was completely on bed rest for two months. During crossexamination PW1 had stated that he had to take leave of two months from his office due to the injuries. He stated that he was not paid salary for the said two months. He stated that he had not filed any document to show that he did not get salary for two months. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 PW1 stated that no doctor had advised bed rest for two months volunteered he was under medication and he had to remain on bed rest due to the injuries. Thus PW1 had stated that he had to take leave of two months from his office due to the injuries and that he was not paid salary for the said two months but he had not filed any document to show that he did not get salary for two months. It is pertinent that PW1 stated that no doctor had advised bed rest for two months and volunteered that he was under medication and he had to remain on bed rest due to the injuries. However there is nothing on record to show that he remained under medication for two months and had to remain on bed rest due to the injuries. Again no document has been produced to show for how much period the petitioner had to remain on leave on account of the injuries sustained in the accident or for how much period he was not paid his salary. Thus there is nothing to show how much leave the petitioner had to actually take or what was the loss suffered by him on account of the leave taken. Notice can however be taken of the fact that the petitioner may not have been able to perform his avocation for some period. Hence, the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs.30,000/ on account of loss of income including for Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 27 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar the period he may not have been able to work.
30. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner had suffered any disability on account of the injuries. The petitioner has not proved that he acquired any disability on account of the accident or he is likely to suffer future loss of income on account of the injuries sustained in the accident and that the injuries would reduce his efficiency to work and thereby he would suffer loss of future income. Accordingly the petitioner cannot be held entitled to any amount on account of loss of future income.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/ would be just and reasonable. Accordingly an amount of Rs.40,000/ is awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioner.
RELIEF
32. The petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/ (Rs.Forty Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization including, interim award, if any already passed against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. The entire amount be released to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the said amount by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft in court within 30 days of the award failing which it would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. for Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 28 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar the period of delay. The petitioner shall file his complete address as well as address of his counsel for sending the notice of deposit of the award amount. APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
33. The respondent No.1 is the driver, the respondent No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. It was sought to be contended that the respondent No.1 did not possess a badge and reliance was placed on DAR where it was so stated and the respondent No.1 was also charge sheeted for the offence under Section 6/177 MV Act. However that is not one of the defences which is available to the insurance company under Section 149 of the Act and even no suggestion was put to R1W1 in that regard. In P.T. Moidu v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2008 Ker 43 it was held that merely because the driver of the vehicle who was duly licensed was not having a badge would not enable the insurance company to shirk its liability as per Section 149 of the Act and the insurance company also failed to prove that the insured had committed a fundamental breach of the policy conditions resulting in the accident. Thus the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are held jointly and severally liable. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited being the insurance company in its reply had admitted that the vehicle bearing registration No. DL1PB4344 was insured with the company vide policy No.31060031120100002493 valid from 12.07.2012 to 11.07.2013. There is Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 29 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar no evidence on behalf of respondent No.3 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondents and in fact the duly verified documents regarding the offending vehicle were placed on record by the IO with the DAR. Hence, the respondent No.3 being the insurance company in respect of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2. The respondent No.3 being the insurer is directed to deposit the award amount in the court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft within 30 days of the passing of the award with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
34. Nazir to report in case the cheque is not deposited within 30 days of the passing of the award/judgment. Nazir is directed to note the particulars of the award amount in the register today itself. The respondent No.3 shall deposit the award amount along with interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant with a copy to his counsel and the compliance report shall be filed in the court along with proof of deposit of award amount, the notice of deposit and the calculation of interest on 20.11.2014.
Attested copy of the award be given to the parties free of cost. Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 30 of 31 Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
on this 19th day of August, 2014 (GEETANJLI GOEL)
PO: MACT2
New Delhi
Suit No. 25/14 Page No. 31 of 31
Mathew Jammimthing v Devinder Kumar