Delhi District Court
Macp No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): ... vs Ravi Singh & Ors. on 7 January, 2023
MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case)
MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela)
N THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
MAC Petition No.5365/2016 MAC Petition No.5366/2016 MAC Petition No.5367/2016
(Old No.503/2014) (Old No.502/2014) (Old No.501/2014)
Shri Lal Bahadur, Shri Panna Lal, Shri Sagar Singh,
S/o Shri Narender Bahadur, S/o Shri Paras Nath, S/o Shri Balram Singh,
R/o Jhuggi No.462, N-110, R/o Jhuggi No.N-110/102, R/o Jhuggi No.110/136,
Rajasthan Udyog Nagar, Rajasthan Udyog Nagar, Sarai Pipal Thala, Adarsh
Sarai Pipal Thala, Adarsh Sarai Pipal Thala, Adarsh Nagar, New Subzi Mandi,
Nagar, Delhi-110033. Nagar, Delhi-110033. Model Town, Delhi-110033.
.....Petitioner .....Petitioner .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Ravi Singh, .....Driver
S/o Shri Prem Singh,
R/o House No.A-322, Gali No.17,
Shyam Colony, Budh Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi.
2. Shri Prem Singh, .....Owner
S/o Shri Roop Singh,
R/o House No.A-322, Gali No.17,
Shyam Colony, Budh Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi.
Also at: N-107/2, Gali No.4, Jahangirpuri,
Rajasthan Udyog Nagar, Sarai Peepal Thala, Shanjarpur,
N.S Mandi, Delhi-110033.
3. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, .....Insurer
Corp. Off.: E-4, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area,
Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302022.
(vide Cover Note: 439129,
valid from 23.09.2013 to 22.09.2014)
.....Respondents
Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 1 of 48
MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case)
MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela)
PARTICULARS
1. UID/CNR Number(s) DLNT01-001255-2014
DLNT01-001256-2014
DLNT01-001257-2014
2. Under Section Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
3. Date of institution of petition(s) 01.11.2014
4. Date of Arguments 22.12.2022
5. Date of Decision/ Final Order 07.01.2023
6. Final Order Allowed
APPEARANCES:
Shri Ramesh Chander, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioners.
Shri S.K Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for R-1/driver and R-2/owner.
Shri Amit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for R-3/Shri Ram General Ins.Co.Ltd.
Petition(s) under Section 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for grant of compensation
07.01.2023
AWARD:
BACKGROUND PREFACE/INTRODUCTION
1. (i) Today road traffic injuries are one of the leading causes of deaths, disabilities and hospitalization with severe socio-economic costs across the country. Besides accident survivors often live poor quality of life and have to live with pain and suffering which are difficult to estimate. The three cases in hand also tells somewhat similar sordid story of road traffic accident victims.
(ii) By way of this common order, I shall dispose off three Detailed Accident Reports (hereinafter referred to as "DAR") filed by the police/investigating agency with regard to injuries sustained by three persons Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 2 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) namely Shri Lal Bahadur, S/o Narender Bahadur (being MACP No.5365/2016); Shri Panna Lal, S/o Shri Paras Nath (being MACP No.5366/2016) and Shri Sagar Singh, S/o Shri Balram Singh (being MACP No.5367/2016) in motor vehicular accident which took place in the evening of 11.01.2014, at about 5.35 PM, between Pole Number 41 and 418, Alipur Highway, main GTK Road, near Sai Baba Mandir, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Alipur.
2. The facts of the case in brief, as borne out from the record are that all the three petitioners herein had been working as labourers with respondents No.1 and 2. On the fateful day of 11.01.2014, after loading steel plates/rods in Tata 407/canter bearing registration No.DL-1LE-6982 (offending vehicle) from Udyog Nagar, Jahangirpuri, Delhi they all were heading to Kundli, Haryana for delivery of the same. The offending vehicle at the relevant time was being plied/driven by respondent No.1/Ravi Singh. The petitioners were sitting at the back side of offending vehicle, while two other persons/labourers namely Shri Nagar Nath and Shri Chet Ram were sitting with respondent No.1 in the driver's cabin. At about 5.30/5.35 PM, when the offending vehicle reached near Sai Mandir, Alipur Highway, main GTK Road, it hit the grill of divider between poles No.416 and 418 with strong force. Such was the impact of accident that front right side tyre of the offending vehicle got stuck in the sand and some steel plates/rods also fell on the road. All the three petitioners who were sitting at the back side of offending vehicle sustained multiple injuries. Upon seeing the condition of petitioners, respondent No.1 fled from the spot leaving the offending vehicle behind. Somebody from the public informed the police, pursuant whereto PCR van and CATS ambulance arrived at the spot of accident. All the three petitioners were removed to Satyawadi Raja Harish Chandra Hospital, Narela, Delhi (in short "SRHC Hospital"), where they were medically examined vide MLCs No.121/2014 (in respect of injured Panna Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 3 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) Lal); No.122/14 (in respect of injured Lal Bahadur); and No.123/14 (in respect of injured Sagar Singh) and all were opined to have sustained "grievous injuries". Injured/petitioner Panna Lal, who was deaf and dumb by birth also suffered below knee amputation of his left leg as well as amputation of his 2 nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th toe of his right leg.
3. (i) Police was informed. FIR No.23/2014, dated 11.01.2014, U/s 279/338 IPC was registered at PS Alipur with regard to the said accident. During the course of investigation, it came to fore that offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1/Ravi Singh at the relevant time, while his father, i.e respondent No.2/Prem Singh was found to be registered owner thereof. During the course of investigation, it further came to fore that respondent No.1 was not having/possessing any Commercial Licence to drive the offending vehicle. The owner/respondent No.2 produced the insurance policy of M/s Reliance General Insurance Company qua the offending vehicle, which turned to be a FAKE one. As such, sections 3/181, 5/181 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "MV Act") and Section 471 IPC were invoked at the time of filing chargesheet/final report in the matter.
(ii) After culmination of investigation, police filed three separate DARs in the matters, which vide order(s) dated 01.11.2014 were treated as a claim petition(s) under 166 (4) of M.V Act.
(iii) It is further noteworthy that since all the three claim petitions/DARs arose out of the same motor vehicular accident and considering the fact that eye witnesses in the said cases were same vis-à-vis common witnesses were to be examined, accordingly vide order dated 15.05.2018, same were consolidated for the sake of convenience and recording of evidence and "MACP No.5366/2016", titled as, "Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors." was treated as the "leading case". As Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 4 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) such, evidence was led on behalf of all the sides in the "leading case".
4. Now, let us have a bird's eye view of the respective cases set up by all the three petitioners/injured persons.
(i) Common Right from the word "Go", it has been the case of petitioners submissions that the accident in question had occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.1.
(ii) In MACP It has been the case of injured/petitioner Lal Bahadur that at No.5365/2016 (Old the time of accident, he was aged about 26 years, working No.503/2014) under respondent No.2/owner as "contractual labour" and earning around Rs.15,000/- per month. He was the sole earning member of his family. He suffered multiple grievous injuries, including sensory deficit/sensory loss in his left hand thumb and remained confined to bed for a considerable period of time and still not able to perform his daily routine work in a normal manner. As such, grant of compensation @ Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) alongwith requisite interest quotient has been prayed for.
(iii) In MACP It has been the case of injured/petitioner Panna Lal (who has No.5366/2016 (Old been deaf and dumb by birth) at the time of accident, he was No.502/2014) aged about 24 years, working under respondent No.2/owner as "contractual labour" and earning around Rs.15,000/- per month. He was the main earning member of his family. He suffered multiple grievous injuries, including below knee amputation of his left leg as well as amputation of his 2 nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th toe of his right leg and remained confined to Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 5 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) bed for a considerable period of time and still not able to perform his daily routine work in a normal manner. He is still under treatment.As such, grant of compensation @ Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) alongwith requisite interest quotient has been prayed for.
(iv) In MACP It has been the case of injured/petitioner Sagar Singh that at No.5367/2016 (Old the time of accident, he was aged about 19 years, working No.501/2014) under respondent No.2/owner as "contractual labour" and earning around Rs.15,000/- per month. He was the main earning member of his family. He suffered multiple grievous injuries, remained admitted in SRHC Hospital for about 1½ months and still not able to perform his daily routine work in a normal manner. As such, grant of compensation @ Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) alongwith requisite interest quotient has been prayed for.
5. (i) Respondents No.1 and 2, i.e driver and registered owner of offending vehicle, who are son and father respectively by way of their common reply/written statement filed in the matter did not dispute either the accident or the injuries suffered by the petitioners. But, both of them did not accept the blame for any of these. It has been very stoutly contended that respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle carefully and at a normal speed on the date and time of accident, however, suddenly its front right side tyre "got burst", due to which respondent No.1 lost balance/control over the offending vehicle and it resultantly collided/hit against the divider. Since the offending vehicle was loaded with steel plates/rods and petitioners were sitting behind, they all suffered injuries. As such, it has been emphasized that no rashness or negligence can be attributed to respondent No.1 as Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 6 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) the accident in question occurred because of the "Act of God" since respondent No.1 had no control over the sudden tyre burst experienced by him while driving the offending vehicle.
(ii) As regards the Driving Licence, it has been contended that respondent No.1 was carrying a valid LMV-NT (Light Motor Vehicle-Non Transport) Driving Licence on the date and time of accident, which was issued to him on 12.01.2010 and is valid till 11.01.2030.
(iii) As far as the insurance policy qua the offending vehicle is concerned, the ground taken by respondent No.2/owner has been that he had purchased the insurance policy from respondent No.3/Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "insurance company"), through its Agent namely Shri Ram Nayan vide Cover Note No.439129, bearing date of issuance as 21.09.2013 against cash payment of premium of Rs.14,867/- to the said Agent. It has further been the case of respondent No.2/owner that he is an illiterate person, not knowing English language and taking advantage of this fact, the Insurance Agent Shri Ram Nayan had handed over him two cover notes qua the offending vehicle, the first being allegedly issued by respondent No.3/insurance company and the second being issued by M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. When he/respondent No.2 came to know of the aforesaid mischief played upon him by insurance agent Shri Ram Nayan, he accordingly lodged a complaint dated 07.12.2016 with SHO, PS Mahendra Park vide DD No.39-B. Accordingly, it has been contended that liability, if any in the matter should be fastened upon respondent No.3/insurance company as the offending vehicle was lying insured with it.
6. (i) Respondent No.3/Insurance Company by way of its reply/written statement denied all its liabilities in the matter inter alia taking preliminary Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 7 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) objection(s) to the effect that the offending vehicle was never insured with it. The purported Insurance Policy/Cover Note bearing No.439129, having date of issuance as 21.09.2013 (being relied upon by respondent No.2) is a "fake and fabricated document", as the same was never issued by it and that is the reason respondent No.2 has been chargesheeted with offence(s) punishable under Sections 146/196 M.V Act and Section 471 IPC. Even no insurance premium @ Rs.14,867/- was ever received by it. It has further been emphasized that its Cover Note Book bearing No.43913 containing leaves from 10000439121 to 10000439130 was lost/stolen/ missing from the records and a report/NCR No.889/2020, dated 19.06.2010 was lodged in PS Samaipur Badli to this effect. Even the said Cover Note Book was issued till the year 2010 only.
(ii) It has further been contended that respondent No.1/driver (who also happens to be son of respondent No.2) was not carrying/possessing any Driving Licence while driving the offending vehicle on the date and time of accident. As such, it has contended that respondent No.3/insurance company is not liable to pay any claim/compensation to the petitioners.
7. (i) Now, I am to enquire into the following aspects. First: "What happened, and how did it happen". Second: "How, to compensate the petitioners/injured persons". Third: "Whether the Insurance Policy/Cover Note bearing No.439129, having date of issuance as 21.09.2013 (being relied upon by respondent No.2) is a "fake and fabricated document"? If so, its effect.
(ii) For deciding the aforesaid three aspects, it would be appropriate to have a glimpse of the issues framed in the matter. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in the matters vide order dated 17.09.2015.
Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 8 of 48MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) Issues framed in MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014):
(1) Whether the injured Lal Bahadur suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 11.01.2014, at 5.35 PM, between pole Nos.416 and 418, Alipur Highway main GTK Road, near Sai Baba Mandir, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Alipur, due to rashness and negligence on the part of Ravi Singh, who was driving the tempo bearing registration No.DL-1LE-
6982, owned by Prem Singh and insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited? OPP.
(2) Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP.
(3) Relief.
Issues framed in MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014):
(1) Whether the injured Panna Lal suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 11.01.2014, at 5.35 PM, between pole Nos.416 and 418, Alipur Highway main GTK Road, near Sai Baba Mandir, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Alipur, due to rashness and negligence on the part of Ravi Singh, who was driving the tempo bearing registration No.DL-1LE-
6982, owned by Prem Singh and insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited? OPP.
(2) Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP.
(3) Relief.
Issues framed in MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014):
(1) Whether the injured Sagar Singh suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 11.01.2014, at 5.35 PM, between pole Nos.416 and 418, Alipur Highway main GTK Road, near Sai Baba Mandir, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Alipur, due to rashness and negligence on the part of Ravi Singh, who was driving the tempo bearing registration No.DL-1LE-
6982, owned by Prem Singh and insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited? OPP.
(2) Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP.
(3) Relief.
Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 9 of 48MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) EVIDENCE ADDUCED Petitioners' Evidence:
8. In support of their respective claims, petitioner/injured Shri Sagar Singh (in MACP No.5367/2016) examined himself as PW-1; petitioner/injured Shri Panna Lal (in MACP No.5366/2016) examined himself as PW-2; and petitioner/injured Shri Lal Bahadur (in MACP No.5365/2016) as PW-3 in the matter(s)/leading case. I will discuss their evidence in detail at the time of returning my findings on the relevant issue(s). PE in the matter(s) was closed vide order dated 13.03.2019. However, thereafter petitioners moved an application U/o 18 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, inter alia praying for re-opening of evidence. The said application of petitioners was allowed vide order dated 09.01.2020. (Note: Since PW-2/Panna Lal is deaf and dumb by birth, so help of sign language interpretor namely Shri Dinesh Kumar was taken while recording the evidence of this witness).
Respondents' Evidence:
Evidence by respondents No.1 & 2, i.e driver and owner
9. (i) Respondent No.2/owner Shri Prem Singh examined himself as R2W1 in the matter. In support of the contentions raised by respondents No.1 and 2 in their common reply/written statement, they further summoned/examined one Shri Deepak Bansal, Account Executive of respondent No.3/insurance company, working at its Pitampura Office, Delhi as R2W2 in the matter.
Evidence by respondent No.3/insurance company
(ii) Respondent No.3/insurance company to cement the grounds taken by it in the reply/written statement has examined one Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Senior Legal Officer from its Karol Bagh Office, Delhi as R3W1 in the matter.
Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 10 of 48MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela)
(iii) I will deliberate upon the evidence led by aforesaid witnesses at the time of returning my findings on the relevant issue(s). RE in the matter was finally closed vide order dated 02.06.2022.
10. I have heard arguments advanced at Bar by learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned counsel(s) for the respondents and carefully perused the entire material on record. My findings on the issues are as under.
Issue No.(1) in all the three claim petitions
11. (i) The onus to prove Issue No.(1) in all the three claim petitions aforesaid was upon the petitioners/claimants. Since, finding on said issue(s) is going to be common, so they are being taken up simultaneously for consideration. For the purpose of said issue(s), the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are very relevant, as besides being the injured persons, they are also the eye witnesses of the accident in question.
(ii) Though R2W1/Shri Prem Singh (owner offending vehicle) is not an eye witness of the accident in question, however, his testimony is also very relevant in deciding this issue as he has categorically taken the plea that his son/respondent No.1/driver was driving the offending vehicle at a normal speed, however, suddenly its front right side tyre got burst, as a result of which respondent No.1 lost his control over the offending vehicle and thus the accident was an "Act of God", the liability whereof cannot be fastened upon respondent No.1.
12. (i) Firstly, coming back to the evidence of petitioners. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 in their examination-in-chief have categorically deposed on the lines of averments made in the DAR(s). All of them in their deposition before this Tribunal categorically have fastened the blame upon respondent No.1/driver Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 11 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) for causing the accident in question by stating in simple and plain words that it was the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle on the part of respondent No.1 which resulted in this tragic accident.
(ii) They have proved on record the following documents:
Documents proved on record Documents proved on record Documents proved on record by PW-1/Sagar Singh by PW-2/Panna Lal by PW-3/Lal Bahadur
(i) Copy of his Aadhar Card as (i) Copy of DAR already (i) Copy of DAR already Ex.PW1/1 (OSR). exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). (Colly).
(ii) Copy of DAR as (ii) Copy(ies) of medical bills Original Disability Certificate Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). as Ex.PW2/1 (Colly), total as Ex.PW3/2.
amounting to Rs.31,220/-.
(iii) Original Disability
Certificate as Ex.PW2/2.
(iii) PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were thoroughly cross-examined on behalf of
respondents. PW-1/Sagar Singh in his cross-examination categorically denied
the suggestion that accident in question was not caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.1 at the relevant time. However, he stated that front tyre of offending vehicle got burst, due to which it got disbalanced. He further stated that he remained admitted in SRHC Hospital for about 1½ months.
(iv) PW-2/Panna Lal in his cross-examination stated that at the time of accident, he was sitting in the back portion of offending vehicle. He further stated that the tyre of offending vehicle had got burst. He could not say whether the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.1 or not. He categorically denied the suggestion that had not suffered any disability in the accident in question.
(v) PW-3/Lal Bahadur in his cross-examination also stated that at the Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 12 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) time of accident, he was sitting in the back portion of offending vehicle. He further stated that the tyre of offending vehicle had got burst. He could not say whether the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.1 or not. He categorically denied the suggestion that had not suffered any disability in the accident in question.
13. Now, let us see as to what R2W1/Shri Prem Singh (owner and father of driver/respondent No.1) has said in his evidence on this issue. R2W1/Shri Prem Singh in his examination in chief by way of affidavit (Ex.R2W1/A) has categorically stated that his son/respondent No.1/driver was driving the offending vehicle at a normal speed, however, suddenly its front right side tyre got burst, as a result of which respondent No.1 lost his control over the offending vehicle and thus the accident was an "Act of God", the liability whereof cannot be fastened upon respondent No.1. He has proved on record the following documents:
(i) Insurance Policy/Cover Note bearing No.439129, issued Ex.R2W1/1 by respondent No.3/insurance company qua the offending vehicle
(ii) Photocopy of insurance policy, issued by M/s Reliance Mark A General Insurance Company Limited qua the offending vehicle
(iii) Copy of police complaint made by R2W1 against Shri Ex.R2W1/2 Ram Nayan
(iv) Original Notice, dated 08.05.2019, issued U/o 12 Rule 8 Ex.R2W1/3 CPC on behalf of R2W1 to respondent No.3/insurance company
(v) Original postal receipts thereof Ex.R2W1/4
(vi) Copy of his Aadhar Card Ex.R2W1/5 Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 13 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela)
14. Harping upon the testimony of R2W1/Prem Singh as well as the cross- examinations of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, Shri S.K Tyagi, Advocate has made a strong pitch that it is clearly evident that respondent No.1/driver was driving the offending vehicle at a normal speed and the accident in question took place on account of the sudden and unexpected front right side tyre burst of offending vehicle, which may be termed as an "Act of God", the liability whereof cannot be fastened upon respondent No.1.
15. Per contra, Shri Ramesh Chander, Advocate, learned legal aid counsel for the petitioners has very emphatically submitted that in a claim petition filed under M.V 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. To be precise, he has very vehemently argued that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-2, all of whom besides the eye witnesses are also the injured have categorically stated in their examination-in-chief that the accident in question occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.1/driver. He has further argued that "bursting of tyre" cannot be taken as an "Act of God" to enable the driver or the owner to escape liability in the matter as a "tyre burst" on the road reflects upon the poor upkeep of one of the most important parts in a four wheeler.
16. (i) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar. The precise testimony(ies) of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, all of whom have sustained injuries in the accident and are also eye witness(es) of the case nails the culpability of respondent No.1/driver. Though, they have stated that it was a "tyre burst", but from the examination-in-chief of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 it can be easily Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 14 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) inferred that respondent No.1/driver was driving the offending vehicle at high speed, due to which it met with an accident on bursting of tyre. The rashness and negligence on the part of respondent No.1/driver is further apparent from the fact that PW-1/injured Sagar Singh in his cross-examination by respondents has categorically denied the suggestion that he/R-1 was not driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
(ii) Furthermore, admittedly R2W1/Prem Singh is not an eye witness of the accident, so his deposition to the effect that respondent No.1/driver was driving the offending vehicle at normal speed at the relevant time and the accident occurred solely on account of "tyre burst" merely appears to be a fig leaf and the same is of no help to respondent No.1. I am fortified in my aforesaid view by the observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in FAO No.5096 of 2003, titled as, "Roshan Lal V/s Jarnail Singh", (DOD: 20.03.2014). In case of Roshan Lal (supra), the MAC Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition while accepting the defence of "tyre burst" taken the driver. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court while allowing the appeal filed by claimants in the said case has been pleased to observe as under:
xxxxx I find the dismissal to be wholly erroneous. ........................... A tyre burst on the road is result of poor upkeep of one of the most important parts in a four wheeler. It shall be no defence for an owner to plead that a burst of tyre that makes the driver lose his control over the vehicle to result in an infer- ence that there was no negligence. When a contention is taken before the Tribunal that there was a negligent driving by the driver and it is sought to be explained by the driver that he was careful in his driving and he had kept the vehicle in a state of repair, he was bound to bring before the Tribunal all the evidence of the care that he had taken for the regular up- keep of the tyres. A tyre that is properly maintained is not ex- pected to burst or if it burst, and the driver was unable to con-Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 15 of 48
MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) trol the steering and let it go into a ditch, it is illustrative of the principle of res ipsa loquitur. This issue is also not without precedents and governed by a large volume of case law from every High Court. In Darshan Kumari and others Versus State of Punjab and others 2007 (4) PLR 219, a bench of this court held that bursting of tyre cannot be taken as an act of God to enable the driver or the owner to escape liability. In this re- gard, we may refer the Motor Vehicle Laws 14th Edition, Lexis Nexis, Volume 2 Singh Prem 2014.03.25 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandi- garh pages 1578-1579 that deal with the cases from every High Court of India taking homogeneously similar view casting the liability on the owner or the driver for any mechanical failure or bursting of tyres.
xxxxx (emphasis supplied)
(iii) Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC.App.No.671/2012, titled as, "National Insurance Company Limited V/s Rajbir Singh & Ors."
(DOD: 06.09.2012) has been pleased to observe as under:
xxxxx
5. Even if, the accident occurs on account of a tyre burst or because of the ill maintenance of the vehicle or the tyre, the owner of the vehicle and for that matter, the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle is insured cannot escape liability. In this connection reference may be made to the Supreme Court report in Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) & Ors. v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9; where the accident occurred on account of the capsizing of the Jeep due to bursting of one of the tyres. The owner of the Jeep disclaimed liability. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the Claims Petition on the ground that neither rashness nor negligence in driving the Jeep was established on the part of driver. A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed the Appeal. In the SLP preferred by the legal heirs of deceased Haji Mohammad Hanif, the Supreme Court held that negligence in use of motor vehicle is one of the species of causes of action for Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 16 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) making a claim of compensation in respect of the accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle. There are other premises for such causes of action also. The Supreme Court applied the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher [1861-73] All E.R.1.
Xxxxx (emphasis supplied)
(iv) As such, the defence of "tyre burst" does not provide carte-blanche to respondent No.1 to claim immunity from rash and negligent driving, particularly when the evidence adduced in this regard is apparently against him.
17. It is further an undisputed fact that case FIR No.23/2014, dated 11.01.2014, U/s 279/338 IPC was registered at PS Alipur with regard to the said accident promptly and without any delay whatsoever. Not only this, respondent No.1/driver Ravi Singh has also been chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 3/181 M.V Act and Sections 279/338 IPC. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1/driver.
18. Further, there is no gainsaying that respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that accident had occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
19. Apart from above, copies of MLCs of all the three injured persons/claimants, prepared at SRHC Hospital is also available on record (being part of DAR), which shows that they had been removed to said hospital on Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 17 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) 11.01.2014, at about 6.22 PM, with the alleged history of road traffic accident (RTA). Needless to say, the injuries mentioned in the said MLCs are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident.
20. Rule 7 of the Delhi Motor Accident Claims Rules lends authenticity to the documents filed alongwith the DAR. For the sake of ready reference, said Rule is re-produced as under:
xxxxx
7.Presumption about reports.- The contents of reports submitted to the Claims Tribunal in Form "A" and Form "D" by investigating police officer and concerned registering authority respectively, and confirmation under clause (b) of rule 5 by the insurance company shall be presumed to be correct, and shall be read in evidence without formal proof, till proved to the contrary.
xxxxx
21. Furthermore, it is an established principle of law that in a claim petition under the 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 case of "Kaushnamma Begum and others V/s New India Assurance Company Limited" reported as, (2001) 2 SCC 9, 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.
Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 18 of 48MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela)
22. (i) It may also be mentioned here that the standard of proof of negligence as required in a claim petition u/s 166 M.V Act is on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation [(2009) 13 SCC 530]".
(ii) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in case reported as, "[2012 (4) GLT 516]", titled as, "Godavari Devi Sharma and Ors/ V/s United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors." has been pleased to observe as under:
xxxxx (14) Moreover, while conducting the inquiry into a claim under Section 166 of the M. V. Act, the Tribunal is not expected to search for proof or evidence beyond reasonable doubt, rather it is preponderance of probability, what the tool is, for assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal can arrive at its finding on the prima facie materials, such as the First Information Report to presume existence of the certain facts, in absence of other evidence which might debase such presumption."
xxxxx
23. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 besides being injured/claimants are also the victims of accident and their direct evidence of rash and negligent driving against the driver of the offending vehicle has been corroborated by the documentary evidence relied upon by them as well as filed alongwith the DAR and, therefore, the case does not warrant any other best evidence. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of respondent No.1/driver is clearly visible and as such, he was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of petitioners/claimants and against the respondents.
Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 19 of 48MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) COMPENSATION: ASSESSMENT & DISTRIBUTION
24. This issue is the most ticklish, yet the most important one. The reasons are obvious. The injuries and pain suffered by an injured cannot be measured/ compensated in monetary terms, yet this Tribunal has to award just and reasonable compensation. In this regard, I am guided by Section 168 of the Act which enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry to the claim to make an Award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
25. To assess compensation in personal injury cases arising out of rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle while awarding compensation the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case "Sanjay Kumar V/s Ashok Kumar & Anr.", reported as "(2014) 5 SCC 330" held the heads under which compensation is awarded, as follows:-
Pecuniary damages
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:-
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non pecuniary damages (General damage)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 20 of 48
MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela)
26. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
27. Furthermore, in "Civil Appeal No.7603/2012", titled as, "K. Suresh V/s New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Anr." (DOD: 19.10.2012), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe as under:
xxxxx
2...There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act) stipulates that there should be grant of just compensation. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine just compensation which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.
xxxxx
28. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, I now proceed on to assess the compensation to be awarded to the claimant/petitioner Shri Panna Lal.
ISSUE No.(2) in MACP No.5366/2016 (Injured Panna Lal) MEDICAL EXPENSES
29. (i) As per the medical evidence produced on record by PW-2/injured Panna Lal, he was found to have sustained multiple grievous injuries, including below knee amputation of his left leg as well as amputation of his 2 nd, 3rd, 4th Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 21 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) and 5th toe of his right leg and remained confined to bed for a considerable period of time. He has proved original medical bills on record as Ex.PW2/1 (Colly), total amounting to Rs.31,220/-. The said medical bills have not been disputed/ controverted by the respondents. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.31,220/- is awarded to PW-2/injured Panna Lal under this Head.
LOSS OF INCOME
30. (i) As regards the date of birth of PW-2/Panna Lal, it is noted that copy of his Voter I-Card has been filed on record by the IO (being part of DAR), wherein his age as on 01.01.2008 has been shown as 18 years. The age of PW-2/Panna Lal reflected on the said Voter I-Card has not been disputed by the respondents. The accident in this case occurred on 11.01.2014. Going by age of Panna Lal, as reflected in his Voter I-Card, he must have been aged about 24 years at the time of accident. Even PW-2 has also claimed himself to be aged about 24 years at the time of accident. As such, it is quite apparent that PW-2/Panna Lal was aged about 24 years at the time of accident.
(ii) Now, coming to the loss of income suffered by him. PW-2/ injured Panna Lal has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW2/A) that at the time of accident, he was working under respondent No.2/owner as "contractual labour" and earning around Rs.15,000/- per month. However, he has not filed any documentary proof to substantiate his aforesaid claim. Therefore, this Tribunal has to determine/assess the income of injured/claimant while taking the income of an "unskilled worker" under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of Delhi during the period in question. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker were Rs.8,086/- per month as on the date of accident, i.e 11.01.2014. Accordingly, the monthly income of injured/claimant Panna Lal is taken as Rs.8,086/-.
Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 22 of 48MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela)
31. (i) It is matter of record that immediately, after the accident in question, injured/PW-2 was removed to SRHC Hospital, Narela, where he was examined vide MLC No.121/2014 and opined to have sustained "grievous injuries". He also suffered below knee amputation of his left leg as well as amputation of his 2 nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th toe of his right leg. From the medical treatment record (being part of DAR) it is further evident that PW-2/Panna Lal remained admitted at Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi for the period from 11.01.2014 till 29.01.2014 where traumatic amputation of his left leg at ankle level was carried out. He also took treatment from various private hospitals also.
(iii) Apart from above, it is further evident from Disability Certificate Ex.PW2/2 that he had suffered 74% permanent disability in his both lower limbs, which clearly reflects that his treatment continued for a considerable period of time. Even the relevant part of the testimony of PW-2 regarding the nature of his injuries suffered by him has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted from the side of respondents. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by injured/claimant/PW-2 and in view of the treatment record brought on record, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at atleast for a period twelve months or so. Thus, his loss of income is assessed as Rs.8,086/- x 12 months = Rs.97,032/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.97,032/- (Rupees Ninety Seven Thousand Thirty Two Only) is awarded to PW-2/ injured Panna Lal under this Head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
32. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.2012, has held as under:-
" It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 23 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
33. The medical treatment record (being part of DAR) of injured/PW-2 clearly reflects that he had sustained grievous injuries, which are already mentioned in detail in preceding paragraph(s). Apart from this, he also suffered below knee amputation of his left leg as well as amputation of his 2 nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th toe of his right leg. It is further evident from Disability Certificate Ex.PW2/2 that he had suffered 74% permanent disability in his both lower limbs, which was not likely to improve in future and thus, his re-assessment was not recommended. From the aforesaid, it is clearly evident that PW-2 would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of PW-2 available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards pain and sufferings to him.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
34. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that injured/PW-2 had sustained grievous injuries, below knee amputation of his left leg as well as amputation of his 2 nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th toe of his right leg as also 74% permanent disability in his both lower limbs, which was not likely to improve in future. Thus, from the injuries sustained by PW-2, it is clearly evident that he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 24 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. Keeping in view the seriousness of the injuries suffered by him in the accident and the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as observed in case of "Ankur Kapoor V/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited" [2017 XI AD (SC) 485], I award a notional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to PW-2/Panna Lal.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
35. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for injured/claimant/PW-2 has very vehemently argued that his family members had spent considerable amount on the special diet, conveyance and attendant charges for him. Though, PW-2 has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in respect of amount incurred by him under the aforesaid head, however, as discussed in the preceding paragraph(s), he had remained admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital for the period from 11.01.2014 till 29.01.2014 where traumatic amputation of his left leg at ankle level was carried out. The period of hospitalization of PW-2 has not at all been disputed by the respondents. Considering the serious nature of injuries suffered by PW-2 vis-à-vis period of hospitalization, it is clearly evident that he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. Furthermore, the injured would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In case reported as, AIR 1981 Delhi 558, titled as, "DTC V/s Lalit", Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to hold that victim is entitled to compensation even if no attendant is hired as some family member renders gratuitous services. In these facts and Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 25 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs.30,000/- for conveyance charges and a sum of Rs.40,000/- for special diet and Rs.60,000/- for attendant charges to the injured/PW-2.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
36. (i) Admittedly, PW-2/Panna Lal suffered below knee amputation of his left leg as well as amputation of his 2 nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th toe of his right leg. As per Disability Certificate Ex.PW2/2, he also suffered 74% permanent disability in his both lower limbs, which was not likely to improve in future and thus, his re- assessment was not recommended. From the aforesaid injuries, it is clearly evident that he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question.
(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for taking the functional disability of PW-2 as 74% with relation to his whole body. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel has relied upon judgments titled as, "Arjun & Ors. Vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd." MAC Appeal No. 223/16, decided on 04.01.2018; "Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Malti Devi & Ors.", in MAC. APP. 572/2012, decided on 20.05.2015; "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shamim Akhtar & Anr." in MAC. APP. 616/2018 & C.Ms. 26742/2018, decided on 26.09.2018; and "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nasruddin & Ors.", in MAC. APP. 585/2012, decided on 28.05.2015, passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In the aforementioned judgments, Hon' ble High Court has taken the same percentage of permanent disability as functional disability of the petitioner in relation to whole body.
(iii) Per contra, learned counsel(s) for the respondents have very vehemently argued that on account of the injuries suffered by PW-2, his disability may be taken as ½ in relation to the whole body.
Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 26 of 48MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela)
37. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of injuries sustained by PW-2/Panna Lal and the judgments relied by the learned counsel for petitioner(s), his functional disability is taken as 74% with regard to whole body. I am further supported in my aforesaid view on account of the findings rendered in judgment titled as, "U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation V/s Vibhor Fialok & Anr", passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal Nos. 976 of 2017 and 585 of 2018, decided on 14.08.2018, the paragraph 11 in respect of functional disability taken by the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under:-
xxxxx " The assessment of permanent disability of the injured is on the basis of the disability certificate Exh. PW3/A, which has been duly proved on record by Dr. Lalit. PW3 and as per this disability certificate, the permanent disability suffered by the injured is 48 per cent in relation to right lower limb. The evidence of Dr. Lalit, PW3, who proved the disability certificate, Exh. PW3/A, remains unchallenged. In view thereof, there is no basis to re-assess the permanent disability of the injured. However, the Tribunal has assessed the functional disability of the injured while noting that the injured faces difficulty in walking and doing other routing work. Since the permanent disability of the injure is in relation to the right lower limb, therefore, the functional disability ought to be assessed at 48 per cent and not less"
xxxxx
38. As already discussed in preceding paragraph(s), PW-2/Panna Lal was aged about 24 years as on the date of accident, i.e on 11.01.2014; hence, the appropriate multiplier would be "18" in view of judgment passed in case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. The monthly income of petitioner/PW-2 has been taken as Rs.8,086/- per month, as discussed above. Thus, Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 27 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) the loss of monthly future income would be Rs.5,983.64 paise (Rs.8,086/- x 74/100). The total loss of future income would be Rs.18,09,452.74 paise (Rs.5,983.60 x 140/100 x 12 x 18). Thus, a sum of Rs.18,09,000/- (rounded off) is awarded in favour of injured/PW-2 Panna Lal under this Head.
39. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S.No. Head Amount (Rs.)
(1) Expenditure on medical expenses 31,220.00
(2) Loss of Income (Rs.8,086/- x 12 months) 97,032.00
(3) Pain & Suffering 1,00,000.00
(4) Loss of General Amenities & Enjoyment of 1,00,000.00
life
(5) Conveyance, Special Diet & Attendant 1,30,000.00
Charges (@Rs.30,000/-+Rs.40,000/-
+Rs.60,000)
(6) Loss of future income 18,09,000.00
T O TAL 22,67,252.00
Rounded Off to:
22,67,000.00
ISSUE No.(2) in MACP No.5365/2016 (Injured Lal Bahadur) MEDICAL EXPENSES
40. (i) As per the medical evidence produced on record by PW-3/injured Lal Bahadur, he was found to have sustained multiple grievous injuries, including sensory deficit/sensory loss in his left hand thumb. However, no medical bills have been proved by him on record. Accordingly, no amount is being awarded to PW- 3/Lal Bahadur under this Head.
Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 28 of 48MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) LOSS OF INCOME
41. (i) As regards the date of birth of PW-3/Lal Bahadur, it is noted that copy of his Voter I-Card has been filed on record by the IO (being part of DAR), wherein his age as on 01.01.2013 is being reflected as 23 years. The age of PW-3/Lal Bahadur reflected on the said Voter I-Card has not been disputed by the respondents. The accident in this case occurred on 11.01.2014. Going by age of Lal Bahadur, as reflected in his Voter I-Card, he must have been aged about 24 years at the time of accident. As such, it is quite apparent that PW-3/Lal Bahadur was aged about 24 years at the time of accident.
(ii) Now, coming to the loss of income suffered by him. PW-3/ injured Lal Bahadur has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW3/A) that at the time of accident, he was working under respondent No.2/owner as "contractual labour" and earning around Rs.15,000/- per month. However, he has not filed any documentary proof to substantiate his aforesaid claim. Therefore, this Tribunal has to determine/assess the income of injured/claimant while taking the income of an "unskilled worker" under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of Delhi during the period in question. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker were Rs.8,086/- per month as on the date of accident, i.e 11.01.2014. Accordingly, the monthly income of injured/claimant Lal Bahadur is taken as Rs.8,086/-.
42. (i) It is matter of record that immediately, after the accident in question, injured/PW-3 was removed to SRHC Hospital, Narela, where he was examined vide MLC No.122/2014 and opined to have sustained "grievous injuries". He also suffered sensory deficit/sensory loss in his left hand thumb. From the medical treatment record (being part of DAR) it is further evident that PW-3/Lal Bahadur was also treated at Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 29 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela)
(iii) Apart from above, it is further evident from Disability Certificate Ex.PW3/2 that he had suffered 05% permanent disability in his left upper limb, which clearly reflects that his treatment continued for a considerable period of time. Even the relevant part of the testimony of PW-3 regarding the nature of his injuries suffered by him has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted from the side of respondents. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by injured/claimant/PW-3 and in view of the treatment record brought on record, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at atleast for a period five months or so. Thus, his loss of income is assessed as Rs.8,086/- x 05 months = Rs.40,430/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.40,430/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Only) is awarded to PW-3/ injured Lal Bahadur under this Head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
43. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.2012, has held as under:-
" It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
44. The medical treatment record (being part of DAR) of injured/PW-3 clearly reflects that he had sustained grievous injuries, which are already mentioned Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 30 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) in detail in preceding paragraph(s). Apart from this, he also suffered sensory deficit/sensory loss in his left hand thumb. It is further evident from Disability Certificate Ex.PW3/2 that he had suffered 05% permanent disability in his left upper limb, which was not likely to improve in future and thus, his re-assessment was not recommended. From the aforesaid, it is clearly evident that PW-3 would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of PW-3 available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards pain and sufferings to him.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
45. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that injured/PW-3 had sustained grievous injuries, suffered sensory deficit/sensory loss in his left hand thumb as also 05% permanent disability in his left upper limb, which was not likely to improve in future. Thus, from the injuries sustained by PW-3, it is clearly evident that he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. Keeping in view the seriousness of the injuries suffered by him in the accident and the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as observed in case of "Ankur Kapoor V/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited" [2017 XI AD (SC) 485], I award a notional sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to PW-3/Lal Bahadur.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
46. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for injured/claimant/PW-3 has very vehemently argued that his family members had Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 31 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) spent considerable amount on the special diet, conveyance and attendant charges for him. Though, PW-3 has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in respect of amount incurred by him under the aforesaid head, however, considering the serious nature of injuries suffered by PW-3 vis-à-vis period of hospitalization, it is clearly evident that he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. Furthermore, the injured would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In case reported as, AIR 1981 Delhi 558, titled as, "DTC V/s Lalit", Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to hold that victim is entitled to compensation even if no attendant is hired as some family member renders gratuitous services. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs.10,000/- for conveyance charges and a sum of Rs.30,000/- for special diet and Rs.30,000/- for attendant charges to the injured/PW-3.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
47. (i) Admittedly, PW-3/Lal Bahadur suffered grievous injuries, including sensory deficit/sensory loss in his left hand thumb. Furthermore, as per Disability Certificate Ex.PW3/2, he also suffered 05% permanent disability in his left upper limb, which was not likely to improve in future and thus, his re- assessment was not recommended. From the aforesaid injuries, it is clearly evident that he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question.
(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for taking the functional disability of PW-3 as 05% with relation to his whole body. In support of his Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 32 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) aforesaid contention, learned counsel has relied upon judgments titled as, "Arjun & Ors. Vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd." MAC Appeal No. 223/16, decided on 04.01.2018; "Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Malti Devi & Ors.", in MAC. APP. 572/2012, decided on 20.05.2015; "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shamim Akhtar & Anr." in MAC. APP. 616/2018 & C.Ms. 26742/2018, decided on 26.09.2018; and "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nasruddin & Ors.", in MAC. APP. 585/2012, decided on 28.05.2015, passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In the aforementioned judgments, Hon' ble High Court has taken the same percentage of permanent disability as functional disability of the petitioner in relation to whole body.
(iii) Per contra, learned counsel(s) for the respondents have very vehemently argued that on account of the injuries suffered by PW-3, his disability may be taken as ½ in relation to the whole body.
48. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of injuries sustained by PW-3/Lal Bahadur and the judgments relied by the learned counsel for petitioner(s), his functional disability is taken as 05% with regard to whole body. I am further supported in my aforesaid view on account of the findings rendered in judgment titled as, "U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation V/s Vibhor Fialok & Anr", passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal Nos. 976 of 2017 and 585 of 2018, decided on 14.08.2018, the paragraph 11 in respect of functional disability taken by the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under:-
xxxxx " The assessment of permanent disability of the injured is on the basis of the disability certificate Exh. PW3/A, which has been duly proved on record by Dr. Lalit. PW3 and as per this disability certificate, the permanent disability suffered by the Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 33 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) injured is 48 per cent in relation to right lower limb. The evidence of Dr. Lalit, PW3, who proved the disability certificate, Exh. PW3/A, remains unchallenged. In view thereof, there is no basis to re-assess the permanent disability of the injured. However, the Tribunal has assessed the functional disability of the injured while noting that the injured faces difficulty in walking and doing other routing work. Since the permanent disability of the injure is in relation to the right lower limb, therefore, the functional disability ought to be assessed at 48 per cent and not less"
xxxxx
49. As already discussed in preceding paragraph(s), PW-3/Lal Bahadur was aged about 24 years as on the date of accident, i.e on 11.01.2014; hence, the appropriate multiplier would be "18" in view of judgment passed in case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. The monthly income of petitioner/PW-3 has been taken as Rs.8,086/- per month, as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs.404.30 paise (Rs.8,086/- x 05/100). The total loss of future income would be Rs.1,22,260.32 paise (Rs.404.30 x 140/100 x 12 x 18). Thus, a sum of Rs.1,22,000/- (rounded off) is awarded in favour of injured/PW-3 Lal Bahadur under this Head.
50. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S.No. Head Amount (Rs.)
(1) Expenditure on medical expenses 0.00
(2) Loss of Income (Rs.8,086/- x 05 months) 40,430.00
(3) Pain & Suffering 25,000.00
(4) Loss of General Amenities & Enjoyment of 20,000.00
life
(5) Conveyance, Special Diet & Attendant 70,000.00
Charges (@Rs.10,000/-+Rs.30,000/-
Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 34 of 48
MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela)
+Rs.30,000)
(6) Loss of future income 1,22,000.00
T O TAL 2,77,430.00
Rounded Off to:
2,77,000.00
ISSUE No.(2) in MACP No.5367/2016 (Injured Sagar Singh) MEDICAL EXPENSES
51. (i) As per the medical evidence produced on record by PW-3/injured Sagar Singh, he was found to have sustained multiple grievous injuries. However, no medical bills have been proved by him on record. Accordingly, no amount is being awarded to PW-1/Sagar Singh under this Head.
LOSS OF INCOME
52. (i) As regards the date of birth of PW-1/Sagar Singh is concerned, it is noted that he has proved on record copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR), wherein his Date of Birth (DOB) is being reflected as 15.08.1997. The same has not been disputed/controverted by the respondents. The accident in this case occurred on 11.01.2014. Going by DOB of injured Sagar Singh, as reflected in his Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 (OSR), he would have been aged 16 years, 04 months and 27 days at the time of accident. As such, it is quite apparent that PW-1/Sagar Singh was approximately aged about 16½ years at the time of accident.
(ii) Now, coming to the loss of income suffered by him. PW-1/ injured Sagar Singh has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that at the time of accident, he was working under respondent No.2/owner as "contractual labour" and earning around Rs.15,000/- per month.
Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 35 of 48MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) However, he has not filed any documentary proof to substantiate his aforesaid claim. Therefore, this Tribunal has to determine/assess the income of injured/claimant while taking the income of an "unskilled worker" under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of Delhi during the period in question. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker were Rs.8,086/- per month as on the date of accident, i.e 11.01.2014. Accordingly, the monthly income of injured/claimant Sagar Singh is taken as Rs.8,086/-.
53. (i) It is matter of record that immediately, after the accident in question, injured/PW-1 was removed to SRHC Hospital, Narela, where he was examined vide MLC No.123/2014 and opined to have sustained "grievous injuries". He also remained admitted in SRHC Hospital for the period w.e.f 12.01.2014 till 21.02.23014. However, as per the report received from Disability Medical Board of Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital (in short "BJRM Hospital"), he did not suffer any physical disability.
(ii) Considering the nature of injuries sustained by injured/claimant/PW-1 and in view of the treatment record brought on record, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at atleast for a period three months or so. Thus, his loss of income is assessed as Rs.8,086/- x 03 months = Rs.24,258/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.24,258/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Eight Only) is awarded to PW-1/ injured Sagar Singh under this Head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
54. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.2012, has held as under:-
Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 36 of 48MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) " It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
55. The medical treatment record (being part of DAR) of injured/PW-1 clearly reflects that he had sustained grievous injuries, which are already mentioned in detail in preceding paragraph(s). From the aforesaid, it is clearly evident that PW- 1 would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of PW-1 available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards pain and sufferings to him.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
56. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that injured/PW-1 had sustained grievous injuries and he remained admitted in SRHC Hospital for the period w.e.f 12.01.2014 to 21.02.2014. Though, it is a matter of record that he did not suffer any permanent physical disability, however, from the injuries sustained by PW-1, it is clearly evident that he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. Keeping in view the seriousness of the injuries suffered by him in the accident and the mandate of Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 37 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) Hon'ble Supreme Court, as observed in case of "Ankur Kapoor V/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited" [2017 XI AD (SC) 485], I award a notional sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to PW-3/Sagar Singh.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
57. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for injured/claimant/PW-1 has very vehemently argued that his family members had spent considerable amount on the special diet, conveyance and attendant charges for him. Though, PW-1 has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in respect of amount incurred by him under the aforesaid head, however, considering the serious nature of injuries suffered by PW-1 vis-à-vis period of hospitalization, it is clearly evident that he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. Furthermore, the injured would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In case reported as, AIR 1981 Delhi 558, titled as, "DTC V/s Lalit", Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to hold that victim is entitled to compensation even if no attendant is hired as some family member renders gratuitous services. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs.10,000/- for conveyance charges and a sum of Rs.15,000/- for special diet and Rs.15,000/- for attendant charges to the injured/PW-3.
Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 38 of 48MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
58. It is a matter of record that PW-1/Sagar Singh did not suffer any permanent physical disability on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The said fact is clearly evident from the communication/letter bearing No.F.1(119)/BJRMH/Estt./Misc./Dis/2015/5587, dated 22.11.2017 received from BJRM Hospital by this Tribunal. As such, it is presumed that PW-1/Sagar Singh did not suffer any loss of future income. Accordingly, no amount is being awarded to PW-1/Sagar Singh under this Head.
59. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S.No. Head Amount (Rs.)
(1) Expenditure on medical expenses 0.00
(2) Loss of Income (Rs.8,086/- x 03 months) 24,258.00
(3) Pain & Suffering 20,000.00
(4) Loss of General Amenities & Enjoyment of 20,000.00
life
(5) Conveyance, Special Diet & Attendant 40,000.00
Charges (@Rs.10,000/-+Rs.15,000/-
+Rs.15,000)
(6) Loss of future income 0.00
T O TAL 1,04,258.00
Rounded Off to:
1,04,000.00
60. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. As regards, the liability to pay compensation in the matter is concerned, the stand of respondents No.1 and 2 on the one hand and respondent No.3/insurance company on the other hand has been as under:
Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 39 of 48MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) Stand of respondent No.1/driver and Stand of respondent No.3/insurance respondent No.2/owner company It has been the categorical stand of It has been the categorical stand of respondents that on the date and time of respondent No.3/insurance company that accident the offending vehicle was duly offending vehicle was never insured lying insured with respondent No.3/ with it. The purported Insurance insurance company vide Cover Note Policy/Cover Note bearing No.439129, No.439129, bearing date of issuance as having date of issuance as 21.09.2013 is 21.09.2013. Respondent No.2 had got a "fake and fabricated document".
the said policy done from the agent of Even no insurance premium @ respondent No.3 namely Shri Ram Rs.14,867/- was ever received by it. It Nayan, against cash payment of has further been emphasized that its premium @ Rs.14,867/-. Cover Note Book bearing No.43913 containing leaves from 10000439121 to 10000439130 was lost/stolen/ missing from the records and a report/NCR No.889/2020, dated 19.06.2010 was lodged in PS Samaipur Badli to this effect. Even the said Cover Note Book was issued till the year 2010 only.
61. Respondents No.1 and 2 to lend credence to their aforesaid contentions summoned/examined Shri Deepak Bansal, Account Executive from the Pitampura Office of respondent No.3/insurance company as R2W2. This witness in his evidence categorically stated that Cover Note bearing No.439129 (Ex.R2W1/1) was not issued from the Pitampura Branch office of respondent No.3/insurance Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 40 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) company. This witness even could not tell as to whether the calculation done on the aforesaid Cover Note/Ex.R2W1/1 is correct or not. As such, this witness is of no help to the cause of respondents No.1 and 2.
62. (i) Now, let us see as to what respondent No.3/insurance company has done to substantiate the defence taken by it in the matter. Respondent No.3 examined its Senior Legal Officer namely Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma as R3W1 in the matter. R3W1/Shri Ashok Kumar in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.R3W1/A) categorically stated that the offending vehicle was never insured with respondent No.3/insurance company. The purported Insurance Policy/Cover Note bearing No.439129, having date of issuance as 21.09.2013 (already Ex.R2W1/1) is a "fake and fabricated document" and that is the reason respondent No.2 has been chargesheeted with offence(s) punishable under Sections 146/196 M.V Act and Section 471 IPC. He further stated that even no insurance premium @ Rs.14,867/- was ever received by R-3. He further stated that Cover Note Book bearing No.43913 containing leaves from 10000439121 to 10000439130 was lost/stolen/missing from the records and a report/NCR No.889/2020, dated 19.06.2010 was lodged in PS Samaipur Badli to this effect. Even the said Cover Note Book was issued till the year 2010 only. This witness has proved on record on the following documents:
(i) Chargesheet/Final Report qua FIR No.23/2014, PS Ex.R3W1/1 (Colly) Alipur
(ii) Insurance Policy Verification Report filed by IO Ex.R3W1/2
(iii) Copy of NCR No.889/2010 Ex.R3W1/3 (Colly)
(iv) Copy of legal notice sent to the respondents No.1 Ex.R3W1/4 (Colly) and 2 Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 41 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela)
(ii) This witness was thoroughly cross-examined by learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 as well as on behalf of the petitioners/claimants. In his cross-examination, he categorically stated that stamp on cover note (Ex.R2W1/1) is not genuine. He categorically denied the suggestion that cover note (Ex.R2W1/1) was handed over/given to the authorized agent of the insurance company. He further categorically denied the suggestion that respondent No.3/insurance company has ever received the premium of Rs.14,867/- in cash through its authorized agent qua insuring the offending vehicle.
63. From a conjoint reading of the testimonies of R2W2/Shri Deepak Bansal and R3W1/Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma as well as the policy verification report of IO (Ex.R3W1/2) qua the Insurance Policy/Cover Note bearing No.439129, having date of issuance as 21.09.2013 (Ex.R2W1/1), it is clearly evident that same was never issued by respondent No.3/insurance company and for this reason I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.3 that it is a "fake and fabricated document". Furthermore, respondent No.2 has miserably failed to prove/establish on record that he had paid premium of Rs.14,867/- ever to any authorized agent of respondent No.3/insurance company qua insuring the offending vehicle. Accordingly, it is hereby held that Insurance Policy/Cover Note bearing No.439129, having date of issuance as 21.09.2013 (Ex.R2W1/1) being a fake and fabricated document, respondent No.3/insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the petitioners/claimants. Respondent No.3/insurance company is accordingly absolved off the liability in the matter.
64. As regards the insurance policy (Mark A), purportedly issued by M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, it is noted that same was also a Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 42 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) "fake policy", being in the name of a different person and in respect of different vehicle. To set the record straight, on 27.08.2022 the correct policy in this regard was produced by Shri V.K Gupta, Standing Counsel of M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited before this Tribunal, which for the purpose of identification has been marked as "Court Document No.1". A perusal of "Court Document No.1" clearly and unerringly reveals that same is in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.HR-55A-7645 (Model Tata 3015) and it has no concern with the offending vehicle in the matter.
65. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clearly apparent that offending vehicle was without any insurance policy on the date and time of accident. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and owner respectively) are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation/Award amount to all the three petitioners/claimants. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE No.3: RELIEF
66. In view of my findings on issues No.1 & 2 (in all the three petitions), I hereby award the compensation as under:
(i) In MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014) (injured Lal Bahadur):
I award compensation of Rs.2,77,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Only) (including Interim Award, if any) alongwith interest @ 7% per annum in favour of injured/petitioner Shri Lal Bahadur and against the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally w.e.f the date of filing of the petition, i.e 01.11.2014 till the date of its realization (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 43 of 48
MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela)
(ii) In MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014) (injured Panna Lal): I award compensation of Rs.22,67,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Only) (including Interim Award, if any) alongwith interest @ 7% per annum in favour of injured/petitioner Shri Panna Lal and against the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally w.e.f the date of filing of the petition, i.e 01.11.2014 till the date of its realization (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP.
165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
(iii) In MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014) (injured Sagar Singh): I award compensation of Rs.1,04,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Four Thousand Only) (including Interim Award, if any) alongwith interest @ 7% per annum in favour of injured/petitioner Shri Sagar Singh and against the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally w.e.f the date of filing of the petition, i.e 01.11.2014 till the date of its realization (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
(iv) It is noted that vide order dated 26.10.2017 the interest quotient of the petitioners/claimants was ordered to be stopped/curtailed w.e.f 26.10.2017 till the conclusion of PE in the matter. The PE in the matter was concluded on 13.03.2019. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that petitioners/claimants shall not be entitled to interest for period w.e.f 26.10.2017 to 13.03.2019.
(v) It is further noted that on account of the lackadaisical attitude of petitioners/claimant in pursing their application U/o 18 Rule 17 CPC for re-opening of PE, this Tribunal vide order dated 12.12.2019 had ordered for further curtailment Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 44 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) of interest quotient of the petitioiners/claimants. The said application was disposed off vide order dated 09.01.2020. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that petitioners/claimants shall further not be entitled to interest for the period w.e.f 12.12.2019 to 09.01.2020.
APPORTIONMENT In MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014) (injured Lal Bahadur)
67. The statement injured/petitioner Lal Bahadur in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 30.01.2020. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that entire compensation/Award amount of Rs.2,77,000/- alongwith uptodate interest shall be immediately released to him in his Saving Bank Account No.33288100018866, with Bank of Baroda, Jahangirpuri Branch, Delhi, having IFSC Code BARB0JAHANG.
In MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014) (injured Sagar Singh)
68. The statement injured/petitioner Sagar Singh in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 07.03.2020. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that entire compensation/Award amount of Rs.1,04,000/- alongwith uptodate interest shall be immediately released to him in his MACT Saving Bank Account No.50515547457, Allahabad Bank, Jahangirpuri Branch, Delhi, having IFSC Code ALLA0213464.
In MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014) (injured Panna Lal)
69. The statement injured/petitioner Panna Lal in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 30.01.2020. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs.10,67,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner/injured through his Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 45 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) Saving Bank Account No.33280100002004, with Bank of Baroda, Jahangirpuri Branch, Delhi, having IFSC Code BARB0JAHANG and remaining amount alongwith interest amount be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.50,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
70. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 46 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
71. Respondents No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to deposit the Award amount aforesaid with SBI, Rohini Courts Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective amounts in aforesaid saving bank accounts of petitioiner(s)/ claimant(s) mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the Award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of this Award be given dasti to claimants/ petitioners. Copy of this Award be also sent to the respondents No.1 and 2 through concerned SHO for information and compliance. Copy of this Award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form XVI & Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 47 of 48 MACP No.5365/2016 (Old No.503/2014): Lal Bahadur V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. MACP No.5366/2016 (Old No.502/2014): Panna Lal V/s Ravi Singh & Ors. (Leading case) MACP No.5367/2016 (Old No.501/2014): Sagar Singh V/s Ravi Singh & Ors.
(All in FIR No.23/2014: PS Narela) XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Signed copy of this Award be placed on the judicial record of all the aforesaid three MAC Petition(s).
Announced in the open Court on 07.01.2023 (VINOD YADAV) Judge MACT-2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Certified that above Award contains 48 pages and each page is signed by me.
(VINOD YADAV) Judge MACT-2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Date of Decision: 07.01.2023 || Page 48 of 48