Delhi District Court
Master Kuldeep vs Mr. Sonu on 18 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.S. MLAHOTRA
PO:MACT-1 (NORTH): ROHINI: DELHI
MACT No. 232/18
FIR no. 91/18
PS Bawana
Master Kuldeep
(through natural guardian / father Sh. Ramji)
R/o H. No. 287, JJ Colony,
Block-A, Bawana, Delhi-110039.
.........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Mr. Sonu
S/o Sh. Bhoop Singh
R/o H. No. 257, Gali Tail Mill,
Beghumpur Village, Delhi.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Hero Moto Corp. Vertical,
803A, 8th Floor, Tower C,
Opp. New Delhi Railway Stn.
Konnectus Building, Bhavbhuti Marg,
New Delhi.
........Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 04.04.2018 Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 1 / 16
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 18.10.2019
DATE OF AWARD : 18.10.2019
FINAL ORDER : 78,000/-
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT 1 Date of accident 24.02.2018 2 Name of injured Master Kuldeep 3 Age of the injured 15 years 4 Occupation of the injured N.A. 5 Income of the injured N.A 6 Nature of injury Grievous 7 Medical treatment taken by the From Maharishi Valmiki Hospital, Lok injured Nayak Hospital and from Maulana Azad Institute of Medical Sciences 8 Period of hospitalization Not mentioned 9 Whether any permanent No. disability ? If yes, give details
10. Computation of Compensation S.No Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment 2903 (against original medical bills, as per Ex. PW1/6)
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance 10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet 10,000/- Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 2 / 16
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Nil. (v) Loss of earning capacity Nil (vi) Loss of income Nil
(vii) Any other loss which may require Nil.
any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his/her life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and 10000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering 10000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv) Disfiguration Nil.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, 25,000/- (as discussed in para
hardships, disappointment, 8 of the award)
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed Nil.
and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil expectation of life span on account of disability Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 3 / 16
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Nil.
capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X Nil.
%Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION 67,903/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of 9166 (18 months i.e. from award 04.04.2018 to 04.12.2019 except for the period from 12.07.19 to 27.09.2019 as the interest for such period has been withheld vide order dated 1207.2019)
17. Total amount including interest 77,069/- rounded off to Rs. 78,000/-
18. Award amount released Nil.
19. Award amount kept in FDRs 100% as discussed in para 14 of the award.
20. Mode of disbursement of the award N.A amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29)
21. Next date for compliance of the 04.12.2019 award. (Clause 31) FORM - V AGREED PROCEXDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 24.02.2018 Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 4 / 16
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 04.04.2018 investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 04.04.2018 investigating officer to the insurance company. (Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Not mentioned Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 04.04.2018 Information Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 04.04.2018 Company (Clause 11)
7. Date of Service of DAR on the 04.04.2018 complainant(s) (Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all No. respects? (Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR Yes removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the No. documents filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or Notices are being deficiency on the part of the Investigating issued time and Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 5 / 16
Officer? If so, whether any again to the DCPs, action/direction warranted? ACPs, and SHOs concerned.
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Not appointed Officer by the insurance Company.
(Clause20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Not appointed Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Not appointed Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted No offer has been the liability? If so, whether the filed Designated Officer of the insurance company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
(Clause 23)
16. Whether there was any delay or No designated deficiency o the part of the Designated officer was Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, appointed whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to No offer has been the offer of the Insurance Company. filed (Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 18.10.2019
19. Whether the award was passed with the Parties contested Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 6 / 16
consent of the parties? (Clause 22) the case
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to Yes.
open saving bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 17.05.2019 directed to open saving bank account (s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced 27.09.2019 the passbook of their saving bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card? (Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o H. No. 287, JJ Claimant(s) (Clause 27) Colony, Block-A, Bawana, Delhi-
110039.
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the SBI, Branch Bawana claimant(s) and the address of the bank a/c no. with IFSC Code (Clause 27) 38677701969
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes account(s) is near his place of residence? (Clause 27) Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 7 / 16
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes at the time of passing of the award.
27. Account number, MICR Number IFSC SBI, Rohini Court Code, Name and branch of the bank of Complex Branch, the Claims Tribunal in which the award Delhi MICR Code no.
amount is to be deposited / transferred 110002427, IFSC
Code no.
SBIN0010323
AWARD
1. Police has filed the 'detailed accident report' (DAR) with respect to the road traffic accident in which injured / petitioner Mr. Kuldeep suffered injuries. Injured (Kuldeep), driver cum owner (Sonu) as well as Sh. Akshay Kumar, Advocate National Insurance Co. Ltd. were present at the time of filing the DAR. Copy of DAR was supplied to all the parties. Petitioner has also filed separate claim petition under Section 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Both, the DAR as well as the claim petition were clubbed together for the purpose of just disposal of the case.
2. Brief facts of the accident as per petitioner are that on 24.02.2018, he was going towards Sector-1, Bawana on his cycle and at about 9.45 a.m. when he reached at B-Block, Sector-2, DSIIDC, Bawana District Park a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL4S CS 4344, Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 8 / 16
which was being driven by its driver Mr. Sonu (respondent no. 1) at very high speed, rashly, negligently, came from Bawana side (opposite side) and hit him. As a result of such accident, he fell down on road and suffered injuries. He was taken to Maharishi Valmiki Hospital for treatment from where he was referred to Lok Nayak Hospital for further treatment.
3. Contending that said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle, petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as compensation from the respondents along with interest @ 12% per annum from date of filing claim petition, till realization of amount. An interim award of Rs. 25,000/- has also been prayed for.
4. Respondent no. 1 (driver cum owner) has not filed reply / written statement and his opportunity to file WS was closed vide order dated 03.08.2018.
5. Respondent no. 3 / Ins. Co. did not dispute the accident, however it has taken the plea that the Ins. Policy was issued against the engine no. 12269, which is also mentioned in the Ins. Policy whereas the engine number of the offending vehicle, as mentioned in the RC is 12260 and therefore until and unless the vehicle which has caused the accident has not been proved and identified probably the Ins. Co. Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 9 / 16
would not be liable to indemnify the insured / owner. All the other averments of the claim petition have been denied on technical grounds.
6. After completion pleadings of parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 08.12.2017 :-
1. Whether petitioner suffered injuries in a vehicular accident occurred on 24.02.2018 at 09.45 am in front of District Park, Sector-2, Bawana, Delhi due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle no. DL4S CS 4344 by respondent no. 1? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation if so, what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. In order to prove the claim, Sh. Ramji, father of petitioner master Kuldeep, filed his affidavit Ex. PW1/A in evidence and examined himself as PW1. No evidence has been led by respondent no. 1. Ins. Co. has examined Mr. Raj Kumar as R2W1.
I have heard Ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of parties and gone through the records. My findings issue-wise are as under :-
ISSUE NO.1 Whether petitioner suffered injuries in a vehicular accident Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.Suit No. 232/18 10 / 16
occurred on 24.02.2018 at 09.45 am in front of District Park, Sector-2, Bawana, Delhi due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle no. DL4S CS 4344 by respondent no. 1? OPP. 1? OPP.
8. Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner and to prove that accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving by respondent no. 1 and he suffered injuries due to such accident, father of petitioner has to prove that the accident has been caused due to rash or negligent driving by the respondent no. 1. Even, prior to that, the petitioner is supposed to prove that vehicle no. DL4S CS 4344 was involved in the accident as insurance company has taken the plea that insurance policy was issued against the engine no. 12269, whereas the engine number of the offending vehicle as mentioned in the DAR is 12260 and to prove such contention, it has examined R2W1. I have gone the testimony of R2W1 and perused the record. True, the engine number which is mentioned in the insurance policy is 12269. But in his cross examination R2W1 admitted that fact that chassis no. MBLJAR033H9H05675 is of the offending vehicle which is also mentioned on the R.C as well as on the insurance policy. It is also matter of record that the vehicle is a new vehicle and this insurance policy was issued when this vehicle was in the Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 11 / 16
sales office itself and there was no registration number allotted to the vehicle by that time. The vehicle therefore has to be identified by the engine and the chassis number and since chassis number is matching and the involvement of the offending vehicle is otherwise not disputed, nor it has been proved by the Ins. Co. that the vehicle was not involved in the accident, hence the involvement of the offending vehicle stands proved. Further, father of petitioner examined himself as PW1 and filed his affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), he reiterated the facts of the claim petition. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3, no suggestion was given to PW1 regarding rash and negligence or the manner in which the accident has occurred. PW1 has not, at all, been cross examined by respondent no. 1, nor the respondent no. 1 has examined himself to prove that accident has not been caused due to his rash or negligent driving or that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, the criminal case record filed on recored shows that respondent no. 1 was indicted by police for offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC. There is nothing on record which may show that respondent no. 1 has ever approached to any higher authority or any forum against his such implication in this case nor any reply / WS has been filed by him. Apart from deposition of Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 12 / 16
father of petitioner, the fact that petitioner suffered injuries in the accident is also supported from his medical record i.e. MLC etc. Considering all this, it stands proved that accident in question occurred on account of negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 and petitioner suffered injury on his person on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent no. 1. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation if so, what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP.
9. It is not disputed that petitioner has suffered injuries due to this accident, therefore he is well within his rights to claim compensation. NOW COMING TO QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
10.It is claimed that injured was studying in 10 th standard and due to the accident he could not appear in the final examination and therefore compensation on account of loss of studies for one year has also been prayed. Admittedly, no document, with respect to loss of study, has been filed, however, considering that petitioner was minor and studying in 10th standard at the time of accident and Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 13 / 16
sustained grievous injury he along with his family must have suffered great hardships, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness, therefore a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is allowed to the petitioner on this head.
11.Keeping in view documents available and proved on record, a total compensation of Rs. 78,000/- which includes 18 months interest @ 9% per annum is awarded to the petitioner, details of which are mentioned in the above proforma.
Now coming to the aspect as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner:
12. The involvement of the vehicle, as discussed herein above has been proved and further, the witness i.e. R2W1, examined by Ins. Co. admitted that when IO visited their office for the purpose of verification of insurance policy he had furnished particulars with respect to FIR, PS, offence and number of the offending vehicle and their office had not given any specific remark at that time and admittedly despite having knowledge with respect to engine number, Ins. Co. did not send any letter to the insurer to explain such contraction or for removing such contradiction. Hence, the testimony of this witness is not sufficient to prove that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. Further, the other particulars of the vehicle is well mentioned in the insurance policy and in all other documents the Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 14 / 16
engine number is correctly mentioned as 12260, hence there is every possibility that the engine number i.e. 12269 as has been mentioned in the insurance policy is only a typographical mistake and hence insurance company cannot escape from its liabilities on such typographical mistake. Hence Ins. Co. is liable to indemnify the insured / owner and to pay the compensation to the petitioner. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents. ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF).
13.Petition in hands is allowed. Respondent no. 3 is directed to pay Rs. 78,000/- to the petitioner failing which it would pay the interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs. 67,903/- to the petitioner w.e.f. 04.12.2019, till realization.
14.Petitioner is minor and therefore entire awarded amount is being kept in interest bearing FDR for a period of four years, however since he is a student of 10th standard, he is at liberty to move appropriate application for release of amount, if required for higher studies. No loan, advance or premature withdrawal or premature encashment shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the Court.
Respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit amount of compensation, as Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 15 / 16
stated above, with this tribunal within 30 days, with advance notice to petitioner. Respondent no. 3 / Ins. Co. is further directed that if any amount is required to be deducted towards TDS, it would furnish details of amount and TDS certificate as well. File be consigned to record room.
Notice be also sent to the In-charge, Computer Branch (North) to send a copy of this judgment to Nodal Officer of Corporation Digitally Bank on his Email ID i.e. [email protected]. signed by S S MALHOTRA SS Date:
MALHOTRA 2019.10.18
16:32:16
+0600
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (S.S. MALHOTRA)
COURT ON 18.10.2019 PO, MACT- NORTH, ROHINI, DELHI
Kuldeep Vs. Sonu & Ors.
Suit No. 232/18 16 / 16