Delhi District Court
Sh. Banwari Lal S/O Sh. Chedi Lal vs Sh. Dalbir Singh S/O Sh. Mukhtiyar Singh on 3 October, 2007
:1:
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRADEEP CHADDAH : JUDGE : MACT :
DELHI
PETITION NO. 461/06
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 31.03.06
DATE OF ARGUMENT : 13.09.07 & 26.09.07
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 03.10.07
1. Sh. Banwari Lal S/o Sh. Chedi Lal
R/o K-345, J.J. Colony, Wazirpur,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi-52
IInd add: K-481, J.J. Colony, Wazirpur,
Delhi.
.........Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Dalbir Singh S/o Sh. Mukhtiyar Singh
R/o 404, V & P.O. Karala, Delhi-81
2. D.T.C.
CWS-I, BBM, Delhi-9.
3. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.
RO-I, 4th Floor, Jeevan Bharti Bldg.,
New Delhi-1
........Respondents
AWARD
1. Sh. Banwari Lal S/o Sh. Chedi Lal instituted the present Banwari Lal Vs. Dalbir Singh P. No. 1 OF 13 :2: petition against Sh. Dalbir Singh, D.T.C. and The National Insurance Co. Ltd. U/s 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act . He sought compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.
2. His case in brief as per the petition is that he is 45 years old driver by profession earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. He used to work as a driver in DTC depot, Subhash Place. On 02.09.05 he reported for his duty in the depot and was walking towards the bus shed. At about 2.30 pm., while he was approaching a stationary bus no. DL-1PB-1405, Respondent No. 1 reversed the said bus in a negligent manner and hit him. He fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was removed to Saroj Hospital. He had spent Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment. He sought compensation amounting to Rs. 50 lacs from the three Respondents who are driver, owner and insurer of the offending bus.
3. Respondent No. 1 in his Written Statement denied case of the Petitioner. He claimed that no accident had taken place due to Banwari Lal Vs. Dalbir Singh P. No. 2 OF 13 :3: his negligence. Petitioner had suffered injuries due to his own negligence from some other vehicles.
4. Respondent No. 2 did not file any Written Statement and was proceeded ex-parte.
5. Respondent No. 3 in its Written Statement denied case of the Petitioner. However, it had admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it from 03.11.04 to 02.11.05.
6. On the basis of pleadings this Court framed the following issues on 08.08.06:
(i) Whether on 02.09.05 at about 2.30 pm, petitioner was hit by reversing bus no. DL-1PB-1405 by R-1 in rash and negligent manner?
(ii)Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for, if so, from which of the respondent?
(iii) Relief.
Following additional issue was also framed on 13.10.06 after Respondent No. 1 was allowed to file his Written Statement Banwari Lal Vs. Dalbir Singh P. No. 3 OF 13 :4: belatedly:
"Whether petitioner himself was guilty of negligence? OPR-1"
7. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties at length. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by Respondent No.
3. My findings on the issues is as follows:
8. ISSUE NUMBER ONE and ADDITIONAL ISSUE FRAMED ON 13.10.06 As both these issues are interconnected, I would like to dispose them off together.
Petitioner in support of his case entered the witness box and testified as PW1. He claimed that on 02.09.05 he was proceeding on foot towards the bus shed. At that time Respondent No. 1 was sitting behind wheel of bus no. DL-1P-B-1405 which was parked over there. He started the bus and put the bus in reverse gear at a high speed. As a result of this act, he suffered injuries and was removed to Saroj hospital. He had suffered multiple fractures and remained under treatment for 6 months which was Banwari Lal Vs. Dalbir Singh P. No. 4 OF 13 :5: still continuing till the time of his testimony. PW2 was record clerk from DTC who testified that Petitioner had remained on medical leave from 03.09.05 to 24.09.05 and thereafter he remained on injury leave from 25.09.05 which is on half pay till 22.12.06. The third witness to be examined by the Petitioner was record incharge of Saroj hospital who testified about hospitalisation of the Petitioner between 02.09.05 to 16.09.05 at the first instance and from 24.03.05 to 27.03.05 in the second instance.
9. Respondent No. 1 in his testimony claimed that he was driver on bus no. DL-1PB-1405. The bus was parked and he was not driving the same at the time of alleged accident. No accident had taken place with the said vehicle. He had been falsely implicated. He had further claimed that the Petitioner himself was guilty of negligence.
10. According to Respondent's own testimony he was on duty on 02.09.05 on bus no. DL-1PB-1405. He claimed that the bus was parked and the same was not being driven at the time of alleged Banwari Lal Vs. Dalbir Singh P. No. 5 OF 13 :6: accident. His testimony does not generate even iota of confidence. If the bus was stationary, there was no occasion for causing of any injury to the Petitioner. Petitioner himself is a DTC driver. He had reported for duty for his shift which commenced at 2.00 pm. If version of Respondent No. 1 is to be believed then it would be that the Petitioner suffered injuries for no rhyme or reason without getting involved in the accident. This simply is not believable. Why should Petitioner complain against colleague of his for having caused hurt to him. There is no history of any previous enmity between Petitioner and Respondent No. 1. Moreover Respondent No. 1 admitted that he had been arrested in the case and was on bail. He further admitted that he had not made any complaint regarding his false implication. Had he been implicated falsely, he would have raised lot of hue and cry. Petitioner very categorically stated that the offending bus was reversed by Respondent No. 1 at a high speed in a negligent manner.
11. It is duty of every driver to take proper precautions before Banwari Lal Vs. Dalbir Singh P. No. 6 OF 13 :7: reversing his vehicle. If driver of huge vehicle like bus, reverses it without giving any warning and without taking any assistance of conductor is certainly is an act of negligence. Respondent No. 1 should have taken proper precautions before putting the offending bus in reverse gear. As he did not so do, I hold that Petitioner suffered injuries on 02.09.05 at about 2.30 pm., after he was hit by bus no. DL-1PB-1405 which was reversed by Respondent No. 1 in a negligent manner and Petitioner himself was not guilty of negligence. The issues are decided in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.
12. ISSUE NUMBER TWO:
Every victim of roadside accident is entitled to receive compensation from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The amount of compensation is of help to the victim to avail better treatment. It also helps to recoup the expenses which were incurred on medical treatment. Broadly speaking the compensation can be awarded under three heads:
Banwari Lal Vs. Dalbir Singh P. No. 7 OF 13 :8:
(I) Compensation for injury and pain; (II) Compensation for expenses incurred on medical treatment; (III) Compensation on account of loss of amenities and general damages;
13. According to Ld. Counsel for Respondents, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can award compensation only if the accident had taken place in a public place. If the accident takes places in a private place then as per Section 2 (34) of the Motor Vehicle Act, no claim can lie for compensation. Insurance Company would not be liable at all.
14. Counsel for Respondent No. 3 relied upon judgment delivered by Hon'ble Madras High Court in case titled as "
Kannammal Vs. A.S. Kasim and others 1989 ACJ 647.
15. Grant of compensation under provisions of Motor Vehicle Act is a benevolent act. Its object is to ensure that people who are victims of accident are not left uncared and without treatment. The interpretation of law should be in a manner which furthers the Banwari Lal Vs. Dalbir Singh P. No. 8 OF 13 :9: interest of justice and provides timely relief to victims of accident and their dependents.
16. In case titled as Alias Vs. Paul, 2004 ACJ 158 Kerala (DB) held differently in a similar case. In the said case an employee while reversing the vehicle in a workshop dashed against another employee which resulted in latter's death. It was held that workshop was a public place and insurer could not claim any exemption.
17. In case titled as Chinna Gangappa Vs. B. Sanjeeva Reddy,1997 (1) AJR 395, legs of a labourer was crushed by a tractor in an auto garage. It was held that garage was a public place.
18. Similarly in case titled as New India Assuarance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Amit Kumar Kanayalal, 1998 (1) TAC 720 Gujrat, it was held that place of accident was a public place where driver was reversing the offending vehicle.
19. Coming back to the facts of the case in hand, the accident Banwari Lal Vs. Dalbir Singh P. No. 9 OF 13 :10: had taken place inside the DTC bus depot. Relying upon aforesaid rulings, I hold that spot of accident was a public place and hence insurer is fully liable to compensate.
20. Compensation for injury and pain:
Petitioner immediately after the accident was taken to Saroj Hospital. He had suffered compound fractures. He underwent operations. He was hospitalised twice. On 1st occasion for 14 days and on 2nd occasion for 4 days. It would have been very inconvenient and painful for him to have undergone all this. Even after his discharge, he would not have been able to resume his day to day functions. Let him be paid Rs. 25,000/- for pain and injury.
21. Compensation for expenses incurred on medical treatment :
Petitioner in his testimony claimed that he had spent around Rs. 1,50,000/- on medicine, Rs. 15,000/- on special diet and Rs. 15,000/- on conveyance. He had also kept an attendant for 4 months for which he had paid Rs. 2,000/- per month. He placed on Banwari Lal Vs. Dalbir Singh P. No. 10 OF 13 :11: record certain bills. If we total them up, we find that they are in the sum of Rs.1,05,416/-. Let Petitioner be paid the said amount. In addition to it, Petitioner had claimed to have spent money on conveyance and special diet. He was hospitalised for long time. He would not have been left all alone in the hospital. His parents or other relatives would have always remained with him. They would have spent good amount on commuting to hospital from their place of residence. He would have also spent substantial amount on special diet as people normally tend to take special diet after meeting with serious accidents. Let Petitioner be paid Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, special diet and attendant charges.
22. Compensation on account of loss of amenities and general damages:
Petitioner in his testimony did not make any claim that he had suffered loss of income because of the accident. However he had claimed that he could not attend his work for 6 months. PW2 examined by the Petitioner was from DTC.The witness had claimed Banwari Lal Vs. Dalbir Singh P. No. 11 OF 13 :12: that from 15.09.05 till 22.12.06, Petitioner was paid only ½ pay. He was advised rest for next three months and he would not be paid any salary during the said three months. According to copy of salary slip for the month of July, 2005, which has been placed on record, Petitioner was being paid net salary of Rs. 7032/- after making all deductions. He was paid only half salary from 15.09.05 till 22.12.06 i.e. for almost three months he was paid only half of the salary and for the next three months he was not paid any money. Interest of justice would be met if he is paid consolidated amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income and also towards loss of enjoyment of life.
23. To sum up I hold that the Petitioner is entitled to receive Rs.1,70,416/- from the Respondents. The liability shall be of all the three Respondents jointly and severally. The issue is decided in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.
24. RELIEF:
I have already held that Petitioner is entitled to receive Banwari Lal Vs. Dalbir Singh P. No. 12 OF 13 :13: Rs.1,70,416/-. Admittedly the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No. 3, I direct it to pay the said amount within 30 days of today along with interest @ 7.5% per annum to be calculated from the date of institution till date of actual deposit. On certain bills, I found it mentioned name of sponsor as Saroj Hospital. As such, it is quite possible that treatment expenses of the petitioner were not borne by him personally. Let petitioner file an affidavit to the effect that he had spent the money from his own pocket and he had not been reimbursed or sponsored by an orginaisation/DTC. The cheque be released only thereafter to the Petitioner.
25. Copy be provided to both the parties for compliance. ANNOUNCED in the OPEN COURT (PRADEEP CHADDAH) On 3rd October, 2007. JUDGE/MACT:ROHINI DELHI EXTRA TWO COPIES PREPARED Banwari Lal Vs. Dalbir Singh P. No. 13 OF 13