Delhi District Court
Yogesh Yadav vs Shri Pawan Kumar on 6 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF KIRAN BANSAL:
P.O. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
NORTHEAST DISTRICT: KKD COURTS : DELHI
MACT No. 424/11
Unique Case Identification No. 02402C0328882011
YOGESH YADAV
S/o Ashok Yadav
R/o H. No. B51, Gali no. 5,
Bhajan Pura, Delhi. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. SHRI PAWAN KUMAR
S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh
R/o U 36, Upadhya, Near Mother Dairy Road,
Shakarpur, Delhi.
2. DTC
Central Work ShopI, B. B. Marg, Delhi.
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
DO 11, New Delhi, DOXI,
E85, Himalaya House,
23 K. G. Marg, New Delhi09. ....Respondents
Through :
Mr. Manas Kumar, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Jai Bhagwan & Vinod Kaul, Advocates for respondent.
1. Date of Institution of claim petition : 31.10.2011
2. Date when the matter was fixed for orders : 22.04.2014
3. Date of Decision : 06.06.2014 APPLICATION U/S 166 & 140 M.V. ACT 1988 FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION MACT No. 424/11 Ms. Kiran Bansal POMACT Page no.1 /7 AWARD
1. Petitioner being the injured filed the present claim petition u/s 166 & 140 MV Act seeking the compensation. It is the case of the petitioner that on 13.10.2011 at about 9.00 p.m., petitioner was going from Khajuri Chowk to Shashtri Park by an auto and the auto driver left him after the crossing the red light. When he reached was crossing the road in front of Aggarwal Sweet, the driver of a bus bearing no. DL 1PB 2930, which was standing on the red light backed the bus and hit the petitioner.
Petitioner fell down on the road and sustained closed fracture distal third shaft of femur RT and various other injuries on all over his body. Petitioner was taken to GTB Hospital by PCR van where he was medically treated and MLC was prepared. Thereafter, petitioner visited Holy Family Hospital for his further treatment and he remained admitted in hospital from 14.10.2011 to 17.10.2011. It is also averred that petitioner has suffered grievous bodily injuries. Police Station Khajuri Khas has registered the offence vide FIR No. 344/11 U/s 279/337 IPC against the respondent no.1. Detail Accidental Report was filed by PS Khajuri Khas. It is further averred that petitioner was a student and he also giving a home tuition and earning Rs. 10,000/ p.m. It is also averred that due to the injuries, he is not able to continue his studies and above said work after his accident.
2. Summons were served on the respondents. WS was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2. It has not been specifically denied that FIR no. 344/11 was registered at PS Khajuri Khas against respondent no. 1.
3. Respondent no. 3 i.e United India General Insurance Company Ltd. has filed its written statement and admitted that vehicle was duly insured with them vide policy no. 0411003110P001914038 Valid from 02.01.2011 to 01.01.2012.
MACT No. 424/11 Ms. Kiran Bansal
POMACT
Page no. 2/7
4. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed :
1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 1PB 2930 by respondent no. 1 on 13.10.2011 at about 9.00 pm at Khajuri Khas Chowk, in front of Aggarwal Sweet, Wazirabad Road, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi?OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
3. Relief
5. Petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and has tendered his affidavit Ex. PW 1/X and relied upon the documents i.e photocopy of driving licence and graduation certificate Ex. PW 1/A , treatment record Ex. PW 1/B, Medical bills Ex. PW 1/C and criminal case record Ex. PW 1/D and copy of driving licence mentioned as part of Ex. PW 1/E. Respondents has not led any evidence.
6. I have heard the counsels for both the parties and gone through the entire evidence on record carefully.
7. My issuewise findings are as below :
ISSUE NO.1 Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 1PB 2930 by respondent no. 1 on 13.10.2011 at about 9.00 pm at Khajuri Khas Chowk, in front of Aggarwal Sweet, Wazirabad Road, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi?OPP
8. PW1 i.e. petitioner has filed his chief affidavit reiterating the facts mentioned in the petition. PW1 is crossexamined at length by the counsels for respondents. During cross examination that petitioner has deposed that the place where the accident took place is not a busy place. It is further deposed that traffic was on road was stopped due to red light indication. It is further deposed that he was in the process of crossing the road from behind the bus. It is further deposed that there were some other MACT No. 424/11 Ms. Kiran Bansal POMACT Page no.3 /7 vehicles standing behind the bus. It is further deposed that he has not filed any disability certificate issued by concerned authorities. It is further deposed that he has filed his educational qualification and he has passed the B. Com prior to the accident. It is further deposed that he has not added any educational qualification after the accident. It is further deposed that he has not brought any documentary evidence in respect of his occupation and earnings at the time of accident. It is further deposed that he has not filed any bills in respect of expenditure incurred towards conveyance and special diet. It is further deposed that he has not obtained the actual degree, certificate as yet and he had attended 78 interviews after his treatment was over. It is further deposed that he did not need help in standing while he has deposing before this court. Certain suggestions with regard to mode & manner of the accident given to the witness were denied. The evidence of the petitioner is clear, candid and supported by the criminal case record . The contents of the FIR and MLC corroborate the statement of PW1 in evidence. The fact that the respondent no.1 was charge sheeted by the police in the abovesaid proceedings is not disputed. There is no evidence brought on record by any of the respondents to disprove the facts as stated by the PW1. As per the statement of PW 1, the respondent no. 1 had not taken due precaution while reversing his bus. In a judgment reported as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana and other, 2009 ACJ 287 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that certified copies of criminal court, such as FIR, recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of vehicle are sufficient proof to reach the conclusion that driver was negligent. Proceedings under M. V. Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
Therefore , from the statements of the PW 1 and in view of the record of the criminal case regarding the accident DAR, it is proved that the injured sustained grievous MACT No. 424/11 Ms. Kiran Bansal POMACT Page no. 4/7 injuries in the accident which occurred on 13.10.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 2930 driven by its driver i.e Respondent no. 1. This issue is thus, decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents. 9. ISSUE NO. 2
Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
10. Perusal of the medical record Ex. PW 1/ B of the injured shows that he has suffered grievous injuries. He was under medication. He was repeatedly going to the hospital for his regular follow up check ups and therefore, he must have incurred some expenditure on the conveyance. Petitioner has stated that he incurred and spent Rs. 77,373/ for his treatment, but medical bills of an amount of Rs. 64,259/ has been filed in support of his claim and the claim of Rs. 64,259/ towards medical treatment is granted.
11. Petitioner has stated that he was giving the home tuition and earned Rs. 10,000/ per month. He has stated in his affidavit that he could not work as he had received grievous injuries. There is no documentary evidence on record to show that he was giving a home tuition or that he was earning Rs. 10,000/ per month. As per document PW 1/A, the petitioner is a graduate. Therefore, his income is taken up on the basis of minimum wages of a graduate i.e Rs. 8,814/ per month. During course of argument, it was stated by the counsel for petitioner that he could not work for at least one year, due to the injury resulting from the accident, however, no such documentary evidence available on record. But as he had suffered fracture in femur bone, he must have taken rest for four months. Therefore, he is entitled to the loss of income for a period of four months.
MACT No. 424/11 Ms. Kiran Bansal
POMACT
Page no.5 /7
12. Keeping in view, the nature of injuries suffered by the Claimant and the fact that he was under constant treatment, he needed an Attendant to look after him and the claimant is therefore, entitled to attendant charges. Petitioner has not filed any record to show that he has received help of special attendant however, some family member must have been attending him. In Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Lalita AIR 1981 Delhi 558, a Division Bench of this Court held that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some of the family members, for the benefit of the tortfeasor. In the circumstances, where the injured had suffered fracture, it is deemed fit that a lump sum of Rs. 15,000/ be awarded as compensation towards Attendant charges. Petitioner has not shown anything for spending money on special diet and conveyance except a bill of ambulance for an amount of Rs. 3,300/ but he must have gone for follow up check ups and must have been given special diet for speedy recovery.
13. Considering all the facts & circumstances and material on record, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to compensation as under :
Pain & suffering Rs.50,000/
Special diet Rs. 6,000/
Conveyance Rs. 6,000/
Attendant charges Rs.15,000/
Loss of Income (Rs. 8814 X 4) Rs.35,256 /
(four months)
Medical bills Rs. 64,259/
__________________
Total Rs. 1,76,515 /
Thus, the total compensation amount is Rs. 1,76,515 / MACT No. 424/11 Ms. Kiran Bansal POMACT Page no. 6/7 Liability
14. Respondent no.3 is the insurance company which admittedly has issued a valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle. Respondent no.3 being insurance company in its written statement has admitted that there is valid insurance policy issued for the period 02.01.2011 to 01.01.2012. There is no evidence on behalf of respondent no.3 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondents no.1 & 2. Hence, I am of the opinion that respondent no.3 being insurance company is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2.
15. Relief Award is passed directing Respondent no. 3 The United India Insurance Company Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs. 1,76,515/ to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of the petition (31.10.2011). Payment is to be made by depositing cross cheque in favour of petitioner in the tribunal. The respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest in court within thirty days from today under written intimation to the petitioner. In case of default, further penal interest shall begin to accrue @ 12% p.a thereon, for each day default.
Attested copies of the award be furnished to the concerned parties from court for compliance.
Pronounced in Open Court on (Kiran Bansal)
06.06.2014 P.O. MACT(NorthEast)
KKD Delhi
MACT No. 424/11 Ms. Kiran Bansal
POMACT
Page no.7 /7
MACT No. 424/11 Ms. Kiran Bansal
POMACT
Page no. 8/7