Delhi District Court
Rajesh Devi vs . Nar Singh on 12 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN:
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT/ SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACT No. 859/17
FIR No. 178/16
PS Jaitpur
Rajesh Devi Vs. Nar Singh
Injury Case
Smt. Rajesh Devi W/o Jaypal Singh,
R/o H. No. 229, Gali No. 4, A Block, Near Primary School,
Meetha Pur Extn. Jaitpur, New Delhi.
..................... Petitioner/Claimant
Versus
Sh. Nar Singh, S/o Sh. late Sh. Nathu Ram (Drivercumowner)
R/o H.No.12, Hari Nagar Village, Master Ka Makaan,
Jaitpur, New Delhi.
.....................Respondent
Initial date of Institution : 24.10.2017 Date of reserving the judgment : 08.03.2018 Date of pronouncement : 12.03.2018 Judgment: Present claim proceedings initiated on the basis of Detailed Accidental Report (DAR) filed by the police on 24.10.2017 in respect of injuries suffered by injured Smt Rajesh Devi in a road accident.
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.04.2016 at about 05.15 AM, injured was on morning walk and was walking on proper way. When she reached at Gali No. 5, Sai Nagar, Meethapur Vistar, New Delhi, then all of sudden offending vehicle bearing No. DL2CAH3085 (Wagon R Car) came at high speed which was being driven by respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner and hit MACT No. 859/17 Rajesh Devi VS. Nar Singh Page 1 of 14 petitioner due to which she fell on road and sustained injuries. She was removed to Trauma Centre, AIIMS by the police where she was medically examined vide MLC No. 554808/16 was prepared by the doctors of concerned hospital.
2. FIR number 178/2016 under Section 279/337 IPC was got registered at PS Jait Pur. Police conducted investigation. On completion of investigation, police found respondent accused of rash and negligent driving, hence charge sheeted him for the commission of offence under Section 279/337 of Indian Penal Code & Section 33/58 of Delhi Excise Act and 146/196 of Motor Vehicle Act.
3. During proceedings, despite opportunities, respondent failed to file any reply/written statement.
4. From pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 23.01.2018 which are as under: (1.) Whether the injured received injuries in the accident which took place on 19.04.2016 at about 05.15 AM involving offending vehicle i.e bearing number DL2CAH 3085 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1/driver, owned by respondent no. 2/owner and insured by respondent no. 3(insurance company)? OPP (2) To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to claim and from whom?
(3) Relief.
MACT No. 859/17 Rajesh Devi VS. Nar Singh Page 2 of 145. In the issue No. 1, it is mentioned that offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3/Insurance Company and owned by respondent No. 2/ owner whereas in the present case offending vehicle was not insured and respondent is the drivercumowner of offending vehicle. Hence Issue No.1 is required to be reframed as under: (1.) Whether the injured received injuries in the accident which took place on 19.04.2016 at about 05.15 AM involving uninsured offending vehicle i.e bearing number DL2CAH 3085 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent who is also the owner of offending vehicle ? OPP
6. During evidence, petitioner/injured Smt Rajesh Devi examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. In support of her evidence, she relied on Ex.PW1/1 as copy of MLC, Ex. PW1/2 as original discharge summary of AIIMS Trauma center, Ex.PW1/3 as original medical prescriptions / OPD card (4 pages), Ex.PW1/4 as original medicine/Medical bills (15 pages), Ex.PW1/5 as copy of Aadhar card and Ex.PW1/6 as DAR. She has deposed regarding the manner of accident and treatment undergone by her in the accident.
7. No evidence to the contrary has been led by the respondent.
8. After hearing arguments and considering the material on record, my issue wise findings are as follows: Issue No. 1 (Negligence)
9. PW1 in her affidavit of evidence (Ex.PW1/A) has categorically stated that she got injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent. Nothing came in her cross examination to disbelieve her version. Her version is duly MACT No. 859/17 Rajesh Devi VS. Nar Singh Page 3 of 14 corroborated by police investigation. Police during investigation also found respondent/ accused of rash and negligent driving, hence, chargesheeted him for commission of offence under Section 279/337 of Indian Penal Code & Section 33/58 of Delhi Excise Act & 146/196 of Motor Vehicle Act.
10. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court (MP) in case titled as "Basant Kaur & Ors Vs. Chattar Pal Singh and Ors" [2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB)], wherein it has been held that registration of a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle is enough to record the finding that the driver of offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident. Further it has been held in catena of cases that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings as in civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. I am also being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana" (2009 ACJ 287), wherein it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be constructed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
MACT No. 859/17 Rajesh Devi VS. Nar Singh Page 4 of 1411. In view of the above discussion, petitioner is able to prove that she suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent. Accordingly the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
Issue No. 2 (Compensation)
12. PW1 petitioner in her affidavit of evidence stated that after accident she was removed to the AIIMS Trauma Center where MLC was prepared by the doctors of the said hospital. MLC Ex. PW1/1 issued from AIIMS Trauma Center shows that petitioner has suffered simple injuries. As per Discharge Note Ex. PW1/2 issued from AIIMS Trauma Center, petitioner suffered soft tissue injury and she was discharged on the same day of the accident. Petitioner has also filed medical documents from Asian Hospital, but the same do not contain the fact that petitioner has visited the hospital for treatment of her accidental injuries. Rather said documents shows that petitioner visited said hospital for chest pain while she only suffered soft tissue injury in the present accident. Police also filed chargesheet under Section 337 IPC as petitioner suffered only simple injury in the accident. Hence, medical bills of Asian Hospital cannot be considered for reimbursement. All other medical bills are in the sum of Rs.7,160/. Medical record of petitioner shows that she has suffered only simple injury i.e. Soft Tissue Injury. Hence, petitioner is awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.7,200/ towards medical expenses.
13. Compensation for pain and suffering: Petitioner is found to have suffered soft tissue injuries in the accident. Petitioner has suffered not only the physical injuries but also suffered mental trauma. Hence, keeping in view nature of injuries, duration of treatment, trauma of accident, a sum of Rs.10,000/ is granted towards pain and suffering.
MACT No. 859/17 Rajesh Devi VS. Nar Singh Page 5 of 1414. Loss of income: PW1 Rajesh Devi has deposed in her affidavit of evidence that she used to do work of sewing and stitching at her home and was earning Rs.15,600/ per month. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner was doing sewing and stitching work at home. In the absence of any documentary evidence in that regard, she is considered as a housewife. In case titled 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Khayali Ram Chaturvedi & Ors.' (MAC Appeal No. 251/14, decided on 24.01.2017), Hon'ble High Court has decided that a housewife ought to be considered as a skilled worker as she is cooking the meals and is doing household chores round the clock. There is nothing on record regarding monthly income of petitioner. Thus, income of deceased is to be taken as per minimum wages of a skilled workman in Delhi at the time of accident, which was Rs.11,622/ per month. Keeping in view of the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, it can be said that she had taken rest for about one month. Thus, petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.11,622/ towards loss of income.
15. Thus, the total compensation to which petitioner is entitled comes as under: S.No Details Amount 1 Compensation for medical expenses Rs.7,200/ 2 Compensation for pain and sufferings Rs.10,000/ 3 Compensation for loss of income Rs.11,622/ Total Rs.28,822/ Relief:
16. The petitioner/injured is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.28,822/ (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Two Only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present DAR till the MACT No. 859/17 Rajesh Devi VS. Nar Singh Page 6 of 14 date of realization in favour of petitioner against the respondent. Offending vehicle was not insured at the time of accident. Respondent, being driver cumowner of offending vehicle, is liable to discharge the liability of the award amount within a period of 30 days from today along with the interest @ 9% per annum, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be charged for the period of delay.
Release of awarded amount:
17. A sum of Rs.28,822/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner. Entire award amount is directed to be released immediately after deposit of the same by the respondent.
18. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
19. i) Claimant/petitioner shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimant/ petitioner after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimant/petitioner to facilitate identity. No cheque book be issued to claimant/petitioner without the permission of this Court. On the request of claimant/petitioner, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to his convenience.
(ii) In pursuance to the directions passed in Modified Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure as approved by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, petitioner/ claimant is directed to open a savings bank account in a nationalized bank near the place of their residence and the concerned bank is MACT No. 859/17 Rajesh Devi VS. Nar Singh Page 7 of 14 directed to not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the claimant(s) and if the same have already been issued, the bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/ or debit card shall be issued without permission of the Court. The claimant(s) is directed to produce the copy of the order before the concerned bank whereupon the bank is directed to make the endorsement on the passbook. The claimant(s) is directed to produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement as well as Aadhar Card and PAN Card before this Tribunal on the next date of hearing.
Directions for the respondent: Respondent is directed to file the compliance report of him having deposited the awarded amount with the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
20. Respondent will intimate to the claimant/ petitioner about it having deposited the cheque in favour of petitioner in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioner mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate her to withdraw the same.
21. Copy of this Award be given to the parties free of cost and a copy be also sent to SBI, Saket Court Complex Branch for record and compliance.
FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident: 19.04.2016
2. Name of the injured: Smt Rajesh Devi MACT No. 859/17 Rajesh Devi VS. Nar Singh Page 8 of 14
3. Age of the injured: 54 years (on the date of accident)
4. Occupation of the injured: Housewife (petitioner claimed that she was doing the work of sewing & stitching at home, but there is nothing on record to corroborate her claim)
5. Income of the injured: Rs.11,622/ per month (as per minimum wages)
6. Nature of injury: Simple
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: Petitioner suffered simple injuries in the accident. She was diagnosed to have suffered soft tissue injury. She also visited Asian Hospital, but her visits to said hospital were in relation of chest pain and not for accidental injuries in the accident.
8. Period of hospitalization: She was discharged on the same day of accident.
9. Whether any permanent disability? If yes, give details: Petitioner has not suffered any permanent disability.
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.7,200/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance NIL (since petitioner only suffered simple injuries)
(iii) Expenditure on special diet NIL (since petitioner only suffered simple injuries)
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant NIL (since petitioner only suffered simple injuries)
(v) Loss of earning capacity NIL (since petitioner only suffered simple injuries)
(vi) Loss of income Rs.11,622/ MACT No. 859/17 Rajesh Devi VS. Nar Singh Page 9 of 14
(vii) Any other loss which may require any NIL (since petitioner special treatment or aid to the injured for only suffered simple the rest of his life injuries)
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical NIL (since petitioner shock only suffered simple injuries)
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NIL (since petitioner only suffered simple injuries)
(iv) Disfiguration NIL (since petitioner only suffered simple injuries)
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, NIL (since petitioner disappointment, frustration, mental stress, only suffered simple dejectment and unhappiness in future life injuries) etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity: Injured has not suffered any disability in the present case.
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature Not applicable since of disability as permanent or temporary petitioner has not suffered any disability in in the present road accident
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of Not applicable since life span on account of disability petitioner has not suffered any disability in in the present road accident
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in Not applicable since relation to disability petitioner has not suffered any disability in in the present road accident
(iv) Loss of future income(Income x % Not applicable since MACT No. 859/17 Rajesh Devi VS. Nar Singh Page 10 of 14 Earning Capacity x Multiplier) petitioner has not suffered any disability in in the present road accident
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.28,822/
15. INTEREST AWARDED @9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs.980/
17. Total amount including interest Rs.29,802/
18. Award amount released Entire award amount released.
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Not applicable.
20. Mode of disbursement of the award amount Bank Manager, SBI, to the claimant(s). (Clause 29) Saket Court Complex, New Delhi is directed to open bank account in the name of petitioner.
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 16.04.2018 (Clause 31) FORMV COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of the accident. 19.04.2016 2 Date of intimation of the accident 20.04.2016 by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3 Date of intimation of the accident Not applicable as offending by the Investigating Officer to the vehicle was not insured at Insurance Company. the time of accident.
4 Date of filing of Report under Not known.
Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident 24.10.2017 Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before MACT No. 859/17 Rajesh Devi VS. Nar Singh Page 11 of 14 Claims Tribunal.
6 Date of service of DAR on the Not applicable as offending Insurance Company. vehicle was not insured at the time of accident.
7 Date of service of DAR on the 24.10.2017 claimant(s).
8 Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects?
9 If not, state deficiencies in the Not applicable DAR?
10 Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR?
11 Whether there was any delay or DAR was not filed in time, deficiency on the part of the but IO filed applications for Investigating Officer? If so, extension of time. No action whether any action/ direction was warranted. warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Not applicable as offending Designated Officer by the vehicle was not insured at Insurance Company. the time of accident.
13 Name, address and contact Not applicable as offending number of the Designated Officer vehicle was not insured at of the Insurance Company. the time of accident. 14 Whether the Designated Officer of Not applicable as offending the Insurance Company submitted vehicle was not insured at his report within 30 days of the the time of accident. DAR?
15 Whether the Insurance Company Not applicable as offending admitted the liability? If so, vehicle was not insured at whether the Designated Officer of the time of accident. the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16 Whether there was any delay or Not applicable as offending deficiency on the part of the vehicle was not insured at Designated Officer of the the time of accident.
MACT No. 859/17 Rajesh Devi VS. Nar Singh Page 12 of 14Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) Not applicable as offending
to the offer of the Insurance vehicle was not insured at
Company. the time of accident.
18 Date of the award. 12.03.2018
19 Whether the award was passed No
with the consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) 12.03.2018 were directed to open savings 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 and endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s)
22. Date of which the claimant(s) Petitioner shall produce produced the passbook of their passbook on the next date of savings bank account near the hearing i.e. 16.04.2018 place of their residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned in array of the claimant(s) parties.
24. Details of savings bank account(s) To be given by petitioner on of the claimant(s) and the address next date i.e. 16.04.2018 of the bank with IFSC Code.
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings She is directed to open bank bank account(s) is near his place of account near place of her MACT No. 859/17 Rajesh Devi VS. Nar Singh Page 13 of 14 residence? residence.
26. Whether the claimant(s) examined No, but her financial at the time of passing of the award condition was inquired. to ascertain his/their financial condition?
Announced in open Court Dated: 12.03.2018 (Raj Kumar Chauhan) POMACT02/(South East District) Saket, New Delhi/12.03.2018 MACT No. 859/17 Rajesh Devi VS. Nar Singh Page 14 of 14