Delhi District Court
Mac No. : 13/14 vs Sh. Ram Veer Singh S/O Sh. Jagesh Veer ... on 16 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
PRESIDEING OFFCER-MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0005192014
MAC No. : 13/14
Smt. Prem Sharma W/o Sh. Mohinder Sharma
R/o G-12, III Floor, Gali No.5,
West Arjun Nagar, Delhi-110051.
..........Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Ram Veer Singh S/o Sh. Jagesh Veer Singh
R/o Krishna Vihar Colony, Banthala Loni,
Ghaziabad (U.P.) ..............(Driver)
2. Sh. Surinder Pal Singh S/o Sh. Avtar Singh
R/o 24, Bharti Artist Colony,
Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.
II Add. - 8/106 Guru Angat Nagar,
New Delhi-110092 ..............(Owner)
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Iffco Sadan C1 Distt. Centre,
Saket, New Delhi-110017.
(Policy No.1-1RB7FLX, P400 Policy#: 82060859
MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 1/27
Period 23.11.2012 to 22.11.2013) ..........Respondents
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0005182014
MAC No. : 14/14
Gaurav Sharma S/o Sh. Mohinder Sharma
R/o G-12, III Floor, Gali No.5,
West Arjun Nagar, Delhi-110051.
..........Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Ram Veer Singh S/o Sh. Jagesh Veer Singh
R/o Krishna Vihar Colony, Banthala Loni,
Ghaziabad (U.P.) ..............(Driver)
2. Sh. Surinder Pal Singh S/o Sh. Avtar Singh
R/o 24, Bharti Artist Colony,
Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.
II Add. - 8/106 Guru Angat Nagar,
New Delhi-110092 ..............(Owner)
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Lted.,
Iffco Sadan C1 Distt. Centre,
Saket, New Delhi-110017.
(Policy No.1-1RB7FLX, P400 Policy#: 82060859
Period 23.11.2012 to 22.11.2013) ..........Respondents
MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 2/27
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0005162014
MAC No. : 15/14
Mohinder Sharma S/o Harbans Lal Sharma
R/o G-12, III Floor, Gali No.5,
West Arjun Nagar, Delhi-110051.
..........Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Ram Veer Singh S/o Sh. Jagesh Veer Singh
R/o Krishna Vihar Colony, Banthala Loni,
Ghaziabad (U.P.) ..............(Driver)
2. Sh. Surinder Pal Singh S/o Sh. Avtar Singh
R/o 24, Bharti Artist Colony,
Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.
II Add. - 8/106 Guru Angat Nagar,
New Delhi-110092 ..............(Owner)
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Lted.,
Iffco Sadan C1 Distt. Centre,
Saket, New Delhi-110017.
(Policy No.1-1RB7FLX, P400 Policy#: 82060859
Period 23.11.2012 to 22.11.2013) ..........Respondents
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0095962014
MAC No. : 87/14
MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 3/27
Rahul Sharma S/o Sh. Mohinder Sharma
R/o g-12, III Floor, Gali No.5,
West Arjun Nagar, Delhi-110051.
..........Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Ram Veer Singh S/o Sh. Jagesh Veer Singh
R/o Krishna Vihar Colony, Banthala Loni,
Ghaziabad (U.P.) ..............(Driver)
2. Sh. Surinder Pal Singh S/o Sh. Avtar Singh
R/o 24, Bharti Artist Colony,
Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.
II Add. - 8/106 Guru Angat Nagar,
New Delhi-110092 ..............(Owner)
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Lted.,
Iffco Sadan C1 Distt. Centre,
Saket, New Delhi-110017.
(Policy No.1-1RB7FLX, P400 Policy#: 82060859
Period 23.11.2012 to 22.11.2013)
..........Respondents
Date of institution in 13 - 15/14 : 08.01.2014
Date of institution in 87/14 : 29.03.2014
Date of arguments : 13.08.2015
Date of Judgment : 16.09.2015
MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 4/27
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall dispose off the four petitions as all of them are arising of the same accident involving the same vehicles.
2. The facts common to all the petitions are like this. On 06.02.2013 at 4.00 a.m all the petitioners were going in a car bearing registration no. DL-5CD-6363. They reached near Kurar Mor, G.T. Road, Sonepat, Haryana. A truck bearing registration no. HR-38P-1809 being driven by driver in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from the left side and hit against the car as a result all the occupants of the car sustained grievous / serious injuries. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver.
3. The petitioner in MAC petition no. 13/14 has allegedly sustained serious injuries on forehead, head, face and chin. She has sustained multiple injuries on hip joint, right knee, right foot and right ankle. She has sustained fracture of right knee and right foot coupled with injuries and abrasions all over the body. She has remained under treatment at Govt. Hospital, Sonepat and under private hospitals at Delhi. She has been earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by doing a MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 5/27 private job.
4. The petitioner in MAC no. 14/14 has allegedly sustained serious injuries on left side of forehead, head, face and chin. He has also sustained injuries on hip joint, right knee, right foot and right ankle. He has sustained fracture of right forearm/shaft femur coupled with injuries and abrasions all over the body. He has remained under treatment at Govt. Hospital, Sonepat and under private hospitals at Delhi. He has been earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by doing a private tuition.
5. The petitioner in MAC no. 15/14 has allegedly sustained serious injuries on forehead, head, face and chin. He has also sustained injuries on hip joint, right knee, right foot and right ankle. He has sustained fracture of shoulder and 3-4-5 of ribs coupled with injuries and abrasions all over the body. He has remained under treatment at Govt. Hospital, Sonepat and under private hospitals at Delhi. He has been earning Rs. 20,000/- per month by doing a private job.
6. The petitioner in MAC no. 87/14 has allegedly sustained serious injuries on forehead, head, face and chin. He has also sustained injuries on hip joint, right knee, right foot and right ankle. He has sustained fracture of right knee MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 6/27 and right foot coupled with injuries and abrasions all over the body. He has remained under treatment at Govt. hospital, Sonepat and under private hospitals at Delhi. He is Captain in Army and getting a monthly salary of Rs. 35,000/- per month.
7. The respondent no. 1 and 2 were duly served by way of publication in a newspaper titled as "Veer Arjun" dt. 24.03.2014 but both of them did not put their appearance. On 17.04.2014 both of them have been proceeded ex- parte.
8. The respondent no. 3 has filed the written statement to the effect that insurance company is not liable to pay unless it is proved that driver was holding valid and effective driving licence and respondent no. 2 was holding the valid permit of the vehicle in question. The insurance company is entitle for the defences available u/s 170 MV Act in case there is collusion between petitioners and respondent no. 1 and 2. The vehicle bearing registration no. HP-38P-1809 is duly insured vide policy no. P400-82060859 valid from 23.11.2012 till 22.11.2013. The petitioners have filed a false and vexatious petition.
9. On 17.04.2014, the issues were framed in MAC No. 13/14 to 15/14 on 26.08.2014 issues were framed in MAC MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 7/27 No. 87/14.
10. The same issues have been casted in all the four petitions which are like this:-
1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in the accident occurred on 05.10.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-1PC- 8206 being driven by respondent no. 1?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
11. All the petitions are arising out of the same accident so the petition no. 13/14 is treated as main petition vide order dt. 17.04.2014 and the petitions no. 13/14 to 15/14 are consolidated with this petition. The petition no. 87/14 is also consolidated with this petition vide order dt. 13.11.2014.
12. One witness is examined by each petitioner whereas respondent no. 3 has not led any evidence.
13. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record. My issuewise findings are as under:-
MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 8/27ISSUE NO. 1 (This issue is common in all the four petitions.)
14. This issue is common in all the four petitions and hence taken up for disposal together. PW-1 Mahender Sharma has filed his own affidavit Ex.PW-1/A wherein he has categorically stated that on 06.02.2013 at 4.00 a.m he along with his wife Prem Sharma and sons Rahul Sharma and Gaurav Sharma was coming from Punjab to West Arjun Nagar, Delhi. They reached at 4.00 a.m. near Kurar Mor, G.T. Road, Sonepat, Haryana. A truck bearing registration no. HR-38P-1809 being driven by driver in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from the left side and hit against the car as a result all the occupants of the car sustained grievous / serious injuries. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. Likewise is the testimony of PW-2 Smt. Prem Sharma, PW-3 Rahul Sharma and PW-4 Gaurav Sharma in their affidavits Ex.PW-2/A, 3/A and 4/A.
15. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the speed of their vehicle was 40-50 km /hr. The truck hit the car on the left side. The driver fled from the spot soon after the accident but he had seen him while alighting from the truck. The suggestion is denied that the accident has taken place due to their negligence.
MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 9/2716. During cross-examination PW-2 stated that she does not know the speed of the car as she was sleeping at that time. She was sitting on the rear seat towards left side of the car.
17. During cross-examination PW-3 stated that his father was driving the car. He was sitting on co driver's seat. The truck was in a high speed. There is a divider on the road. The speed of the car was around 50 kms /hr. The suggestion is denied that the accident has taken place due to their negligence.
18. During cross-examination PW-4 stated that he was sitting on the rear seat. His father was driving the car at the speed of around 50-60 km / hr. The suggestion is denied that accident has taken place due to their negligence.
19. I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The testimony of PWs show that on 06.02.2013 all of them were coming in car bearing registration no. DL- 5CD-6363. PW-1 was driving the car. They were coming from Punjab to West Arjun Nagar, Delhi. The speed of the car was around 50-60 km /hr. They reached at 4.00 p.m near Kurar Mor, G.T. Road, Sonepat. The truck bearing registration no. HR-38P-1809 being driven by respondent no. 1 in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 10/27 hit against the left side of car as a result all of them sustained injuries. The testimony of all the PWs is consistent on all the vital aspects. The driver of the truck i.e. respondent no. 1 is best person to controvert the version of PWs. The driver has not put his appearance in the court for the reasons best known to him. The respondent no. 3 has failed to bring any material during the cross-examination of PWs that accident has not taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. The record of criminal case is also placed on record. The site plan clearly shows that the car was on the extreme right side of the road. A side road is joining the main road. The truck has hit the car on the left side. It appears that the truck was joining the main road from the side road. It was the duty of the respondent no. 1 to see the vehicles on the main road when he was joining the main road. The respondent no. 1/ driver did not bother about the traffic on the main road and resultantly hit the left side of car. All this shows that respondent no. 1 / driver was driving the truck in a high sped and in a rash and negligent manner as he could not control the truck and hit the car. Keeping in view the testimony of PWs coupled with the FIR and site plan, it is clear that accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1/ driver. The issue no. 1 is decided against the respondents in all the petitions.
MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 11/27ISSUE NO. 2 (in MAC no. 13/14)
20. PW-2 Smt. Prem Sharma has categorically stated that she has sustained serious injuries on forehead, head, face and chin. She has sustained multiple injuries on hip joint, thigh, right knee, right foot and right ankle. She has sustained fracture of right knee and right foot coupled with injuries and abrasions all over the body. She has sustained fractures of 4-5-6 ribs, right knee and right foot. The police reached at the spot and removed all of them to Govt. Hospital, Sonepat where stitches were administered to her. She was referred to Army Hosptial, Delhi. She was admitted to the hospital and discharged on 12.02.2013 with the direction to follow up. She has been a out door patient at RR Hospital, Delhi and Usha Memorial Orthopeadic Hospital till now. She has some times lost memory and feel pain in the chest. She has spent Rs. 2 lacs on medicines and Rs. 30,000/- each on special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. She is doing a private job and earn Rs. 15,000/- per month.
21. During cross-examination, she stated that she has been hospitalized for nine days. There are some medical bills on record. She has not filed any proof of special diet, conveyance and attendant. She has not filed any income proof. Her treatment was carried out in Army Hospital so MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 12/27 she does not have medical bills. She has got treatment from other hospitals but could not collect the bills.
22. Heard and perused the record.
23. It is well settled in a number of judgments that an attempt should be made to put the injured in the same position in the injury cases as he or she was prior to accident so far as money is concerned. In Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co. ltd. , MANU/SC/0777/2010, it was observed by their Lord ship in para 7 of the judgment that
7. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was in so far as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect f life time's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases - and that is now recognized mode as to the proper measure of MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 13/27 compensation - is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.
24. The petitioner has placed her medical record. Ex.PW- 2/1 is her medical record. It shows that she has got treatment from Govt. Hospital, Sonepat, Base Hospital/ Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt. She has remained admitted to Base Hospital / Army Hospital from 06.02.2013 till 12.02.2013. The discharge summary shows that she was having multiple superficial injuries due to road traffic accident. She was having lacerated wound on forehead which was sutured in civil, wound on left second toe and fracture of left 4-5-6 ribs which was managed conservatively. She was called for review in OPD after 7 days with X-ray of chest. She went to OPD on 20.03.2013 and advised X-ray of chest. The X-ray of chest was done at Usha Memorial Hospital on 21.03.2013.
25. Her medical record shows that she has not sustained majority of injuries as alleged in the petition. There was lacerated wound on the forehead on which stitches were given. There is fracture of 4-5-6 ribs on the left side and multiple superficial injuries over the entire body. She remained admitted in the hospital for seven days. There was follow up thereafter. Her treatment is from Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt. as her son is Captain in Indian Army.
MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 14/27There is no medical bill on record, so the possibility is that entire expenses were borne by the hospital. She has sustained fracture of ribs so it is possible that she must have remained confined to bed for a period of one month. The period of one month is taken by some guess work by keeping in view the stitches on forehead and fracture of three ribs. All other family members were also injured in the accident so she was not able to work for a period of one month. Her testimony shows that she was doing a private job but she has not disclosed the nature of job. She has not disclosed her educational qualification so she is put in the category of unskilled worker. The minimum wages for unskilled worker on the day of accident was Rs. 7,254/- per month. She is entitled for loss of income during this period. A compensation of Rs. 7,254/- is granted to her for the loss of income during the period of treatment. The attendant charges for a period of one month @ Rs. 3500/- are granted. She must have taken some special diet in order to heal the injuries. She must have visited the hospital number of times during follow up. A compensation of Rs 7,500/- is granted for special diet and conveyance. She has suffered pain and sufferings during this period so she is entitled for compensation for pain and sufferings which are assessed to Rs. 20,000/-.
26. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 15/27 case, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for the compensation as under :-
1 Loss of pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/- 2 Special diet and conveyance Rs. 7,500/- 3 Attendant charges for one month Rs. 3,500/- 4 Loss of earning for a period of 1 Rs. 7,254/-
months @ Rs. 7254/-
TOTAL Rs. 38,254/-
ISSUE NO. 2 (in MAC no. 14/14)
27. PW-4 Sh. Gaurav Sharma has categorically stated that he has sustained serious open injuries on left side of forehead, serious injuries on head, face and chin. He has sustained multiple injuries on hip joint, thigh, right knee, right foot and ankle joint. He has sustained fracture of right forearm of shaft femur coupled with injuries and abrasions all over the body. The police reached at the spot and removed all of them to Govt. Hospital, Sonepat. He was referred to Army Hosptial, Delhi and thereafter to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi where he was admitted and discharged on 11.02.2013. The operation of his right hand took place. A rod was inserted. He has been continuously taking treatment as Out Patient from Safdarjung Hospital and Usha Memorial Orthopeadic Centre till now. His treatment is still going on. He has spent Rs. 30,000/- on MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 16/27 physiotherapy, Rs. 3 lacs on purchase of medicines from market, Rs. 30,000/- each on special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. He requires Rs. 2 lac for operation for the removal of rod, medicines, physiotherapy, conveyance and special diet. He is a graduate from IP University and earns Rs. 15,000/- per month from tuition work. He wanted to become officer in Indian Army. He was preparing for Indian Army and appeared in Air Force Exam. He has qualified the written examination but could not appear in the physical examination due to injuries. He has lost an opportunity to join Air Force. He cannot join the Indian Army in future. Mark A is the e-mail downloaded from internet showing that he has cleared AFCAT held on 26.08.2015. Ex. PW-4/3 is his driving licence showing his date of birth as 22.09.1991. Ex.PW-4/1 is the MLC from Govt. Hospital, Sonepat and Ex.PW-4/2 is the medical record.
28. During cross-examination, he stated that he is a student of MBA and is in 4th Semester. He has completed BBA. He remained admitted to Safdarjung hospital for 6-7 days. He was advised liquid diet by the doctors he has filed the bills in his possession.
29. Heard and perused the record.
30. The victims of road accident are required to be MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 17/27 compensated for the tortious act of tortfeasers so as to see that they are placed, as far as possible, in the same financial position as they would be had there been no accident. The compensation amount should not be a windfall or it should not be inadequate. It is not easy to convert physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be some measure of calculated guess work and conjecture.
31. Ex. PW-4/1 is the MLC issued by Govt. Hospital, Sonepat which shows that there is diffused swelling over whole right upper limb and lacerated wound over medial side of left eye front. The patient was referred to Army Hospital, Delhi. The patient was sent to Safdarjung hospital, New Delhi. On 06.02.2013 he was admitted to Safdarjung hospital and he discharged on 11.02.2013. He was operated for the fracture of right humerous. The plate was implanted. There was follow up in the same hospital. The follow up continued till 18.05.2013 in the same hospital. He has gone for physiotherapy. The X-ray was also done after the surgery. He has also purchased medicines. He has placed medical bills of Rs. 45,030/-. He has alleged that he has spent Rs. 3 lacs on his treatment but it quite surprising that he has not placed bills to this effect on record. He is entitled for the compensation with respect to the medical bills placed on record. It is quite possible that he might have MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 18/27 lost some of the medical bills so he is entitled for compensation for medical expenses without bills of Rs. 5000/-. He needs physiotherapy for the treatment of the fracture. There is implant in the right upper forearm. The same has to be removed one day or other which needs some expenses. In view of this fact, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is granted to him for future medical expenses for the removal of implant and physiotherapy.
32. He has claimed himself to be graduate and a student of post graduate course on record. He has cleared AFCAT examination held on 26.08.2012 and called for AFSB selection process. He has placed a copy of the same downloaded from internet. The minimum qualification to qualify AFCAT is graduate. He is a graduate. He was allegedly giving private tuitions. The minimum wages for graduate on the date of accident were Rs.9594/- per month. His treatment has continued till May, 2013. He was allegedly remained out of work for four months. He is entitled for a compensation of Rs.38,376/- (Rs. 9594X4) for the loss of earning during the period of treatment.
33. He must have taken some special diet in order to heal the injuries. He has visited the hospital for follow up. A compensation of Rs 15,000/- is granted for special diet and conveyance. He has suffered pain and sufferings during this MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 19/27 period so he is entitled for compensation for pain and sufferings which are assessed to Rs. 25,000/-. He must have required services of attendant though this services might have been given by any of the family members. The services rendered by the family members cannot be ignored. He is entitled for the attendant charges for a period of 2 months @ Rs. 3500/- per month.
34. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for the compensation as under :-
1 Loss of pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/- 2 Special diet and conveyance Rs. 15,000/- 3 Attendant charges for 2 months Rs. 7,000/- 4 Loss of earning for a period of 4 Rs. 38,376 /-
months @ Rs. 9594/-
5 Compensation toward future medical Rs. 20,000/-
expenses 6 Compensation towards medical Rs. 45,030/-
expenses with bills 7 Compensation towards medical Rs. 5,000/-
expenses without bills TOTAL Rs. 1,55,406/-
ISSUE NO. 2 (in MAC no. 15/14)
35. PW-1 Sh. Mahinder Sharma has categorically stated MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 20/27 that he has sustained serious injuries on forehead, head, face and chin. He has sustained multiple injuries on hip joint, right knee, right foot and right ankle. He has sustained fracture of right knee and right foot coupled with injuries and abrasions all over the body. He has sustained fractures of 3-4-5 ribs and shoulder. The police reached at the spot and removed all of them to Govt. Hospital, Sonepat . He was referred to Army Hosptial, Delhi. He was admitted and discharged on the same day. He has been an out door patient at various Hospitals in Delhi. His treatment is still going on. He has spent Rs. 1 lac on purchase of medicines from market and Rs. 20,000/- each on special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. He has been doing a private job and earn Rs. 20,000/- per month. He remained out of the job for four months.
36. During cross-examination, he stated that he was hospitalized for two days. He has not filed any proof of special diet, conveyance and attendant. He has not filed any income proof. His treatment was carried out in Army Hospital so he does not have medical bills. He has got treatment from other hospitals but could not collect the bills. Doctors did not advise rest for four months.
37. Heard and perused the record.
MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 21/2738. The petitioner has placed his medical record. Ex.PW- 1/1 is his medical record. It shows that he has got treatment from Govt. Hospital, Sonepat. The MLC shows that bleeding is present in both the nostrils and complaint of pain in the chest. He was advised X-ray and opinion from surgeon. He was referred to Base Hospital/ Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt. He was treated at Base Hospital / Army Hospital on 06.02.2013. He was not admitted to hospital. There is nothing on the record that he remained admitted to hospital. There is nothing on the record that he has sustained fracture of any part of the body. There is nothing on the record to show that he has spent Rs. 1 lac on medicines. There is nothing on the record that he remained confined to bed for four months.
39. His treatment is from Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt. as his son is Captain in Indian Army. There is no medical bill on record, so the possibility is that entire expenses were borne by the hospital. There is nothing on the record that he remained admitted to hospital for a particular hospital and in the absence of any record to this effect, the question of awarding compensation for loss of income during the treatment period does not arise. He has suffered injuries. There is nothing on the record that he has suffered grievous injuries or fracture. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by him, I am of the view that a compensation fo MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 22/27 Rs. 25,000/- is just and reasonable on all the countable heads.
ISSUE NO. 2 (in MAC no. 87/14)
40. PW-3 Sh. Rahul Sharma has categorically stated that he has sustained serious injuries on forehead, head, face, eyelid, chin and disfigurement of face. He has sustained multiple injuries on hip joint, thigh, right knee, right foot and ankle joints. He has sustained injuries and abrasions all over the body. The police reached at the spot and removed all of them to Govt. Hospital, Sonepat . He was referred to Army Hosptial, Delhi. He was remained admitted for two days in Army Hospital. He has been an out door patient at Army Hospital and various Hospitals in Delhi. He has spent Rs. 2 lac on medicines from market and Rs. 30,000/- each on special diet, conveyance and follow up treatment. He could not continue his work for 40 days due to injuries. He is a Captain in Indian Army and drawing monthly salary of Rs. 35,000/-.
41. During cross-examination, he stated that he was treated as indoor patient for two days in Army Hospital.
42. Heard and perused the record.
MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 23/2743. Ex.PW-3/1 is the service certificate of the petitioner. ExPW-3/2 is the pay slip which shows that he was getting gross salary of Rs. 79742/-. The petitioner has placed his medical record Ex.PW-3/3. It shows that he has got treatment from Govt. Hospital, Sonepat. The MLC shows that he has sustained multiple abrasions on the whole face, Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm on inner left side of upper lip, diffused swelling on the upper eyelid and lacerated wound of 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on chin. The X-ray and opinion from the Dental surgeon and Eye surgeon was recommended. Mark A are the photocopies OPD slips. The medical record does not show that he has sustained injuries as alleged by him in his examination in chief. There is nothing on the record that there is disfigurement of his face or serious injuries on forehead, eyelid or chin though he sustained injuries on these parts of the body. There is nothing on record that he has sustained multiple injuries on hip joint, thigh, right knee, right foot, ankle joint and blunt injuries on all parts of the body. The injuries as shown in MLC, Ex. PW-3/3 are nowhere shown as grievous in nature. There is nothing on record that he remained admitted in the Army Hospital for two days or he could not join his duty for 40 days. He could have easily produced the leave record to substantiate his version. No record is produced from PGI, Rohtak as photocopies of Mark A and B shows that he was referred to PGI Rohtak. Keeping in view all these facts MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 24/27 coupled with the injuries sustained by him, I am of the view that compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is just and proper under all the countable heads.
LIABILITY
44. The offending vehicle is duly insured as respondent no. 3 has nowhere disputed the insurance policy of the vehicle in question. There is nothing on the record to show that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There is no defence available u/s 149 (2) MV Act. The insurance company i.e. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. shall pay the compensation to the petitioner.
RELIEF
45. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2 above, the petitions are allowed. The respondent no. 3 i.e. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay the compensation to petitioners within one month from today with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization to the petitioners. (Reliance is placed on Puttama and ors. Vs K.L. Narayan Reddy and ors., 2014 ACJ 526 for the grant of MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 25/27 interest.) The amount be deposited in the court. The insurance company is directed to give notice regarding deposit of said amount to the petitioner and his counsel.
AWARD IN MAC No. 13/1446. The petition of petitioner is allowed. The respondent no. 3 i.e. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay a compensation of Rs 38,254/- within one month from today with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the DAR /petition till the date of realization to the petitioner.
AWARD IN MAC No. 14/1447. The petition of petitioner is allowed. The respondent no. 3 i.e. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay a compensation of Rs 1,55,406/- within one month from today with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the DAR /petition till the date of realization to the petitioner.
AWARD IN MAC No. 15/1448. The petition of petitioner is allowed. The respondent no. 3 i.e. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000/- within one MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 26/27 month from today with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the DAR /petition till the date of realization to the petitioner.
AWARD IN MAC No. 87/1449. The petition of petitioner is allowed. The respondent no. 3 i.e. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000/- within one month from today with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the DAR /petition till the date of realization to the petitioner.
50. Put up for compliance on 16.10.2015.
51. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the parties concerned.
Announced in open (Suresh Kumar Gupta)
court on 16.09.2015 PO-MACT/SHD/KKD
DELHI
MAC No. 13/14, 14/14, 15/14 and 87/14 27/27