Delhi District Court
Arjun vs . Surjeet Singh on 19 August, 2015
Arjun Vs. Surjeet Singh
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELAM SINGH : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition no. : 287/11
Unique case ID : 02406C0332022011
Arjun
S/o Sh. Chhedi Lal
R/o J3/60, Khirki Extension,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 110 017
Permanent R/o Vill. Raniyapau Doti,
PS Fatehpur 84, Distt. Unnav, U.P.
(Petitioner is minor being represented through
his mother / natural guardian)
..... Petitioner
Versus
Surjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Amrik Singh
R/o L22B, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi - 110 017
..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 26.11.2011
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 31.07.2015
Date of pronouncement : 19.08.2015
JUDGMENT:
1. This petition u/s 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the petitioner Arjun through her monther for the injuries sustained by him in a Petition No. : 287/11 Page No. 1 of 12 Arjun Vs. Surjeet Singh road accident on 26.08.2003 at about 0930 hrs. at BBlock, near School, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.08.20013 at about 0930 hrs. the petitioner was coming from Malviya Nagar market alongwith his father on foot. When he reached at BBlock, Malviya Nagar near School then all of a sudden a two wheeler scooter bearing no. DL 3S 4199 came at high speed being driven by the respondent in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner. Due to the forceful impact the petitioner fell down and sustained multiple injuries. He was taken to Trauma Center, AIIMS where his MLC was prepared. A case vide FIR no. 668/03 was registered at the police station Malviya Nagar. It is stated that the injured was 17 years of age and was a student. It is further stated that the offending vehicle was was being driven and owned by the respondent.
3. Notice of petition was given to the respondent. Pursuant to the notice written statement was filed by the respondent. Respondent denied all the averments made by the petitioner. It was submitted by the respondent that the accident was caused by a motorcyclist who hit the injured and the motorcyclist fled away from the spot. After the accident the injured fell on the road and on humanitarian ground the respondent stopped his scooter and removed the injured to the hospital for providing treatment but after few days Petition No. : 287/11 Page No. 2 of 12 Arjun Vs. Surjeet Singh the petitioner in connivance with the police falsely implicated the respondent in the present case. It was further stated that the FIR was registered after 16 days of the incident at the instance of father of the injured.
4. Following issues were framed vide order dated 11.09.2012 by Ld. Predecessor of this Court :
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in road accident on 26.08.03 at about 9.30 hrs. at BBlock Malviya Nagar, near school, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of Two Wheeler Scooter bearing no. DL 3S 4199 by respondent no.1 and vehicle is also owned by respondent no.1?
2. To what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom?
3. Relief.
5. To substantiate the case Ms. Ram Payari, mother of the injured was examined as PW1. She tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and the following documents :
Ex.PW1/1 - Medical documents.
Ex.PW1/2 - MLC.
Ex.PW1/3 - Certified copies of criminal documents. Ex.PW1/4 - ID proof.
6. Respondent examined himself as R1W1. He tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.R1W1/A and the following documents : Petition No. : 287/11 Page No. 3 of 12
Arjun Vs. Surjeet Singh Ex.RW1/1 - Statement of injured deposed before Ld. MM. Ex.RW1/2 - Statement of Sh. Chhedi Lal (father of the injured). Ex.RW1/3 - Certified copy of judgment of criminal Court.
7. Inspector Atul Sood was examined as R1W2. He stated that he carried out the investigation of this case bearing FIR no. 668/03 u/s 279/338 IPC of PS Malviya Nagar. He further stated that accident in this case has taken place on 26.08.03 and the FIR was registered on 12.09.03. He carried out the investigation of criminal case from 12.09.03 to 08.12.03. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of Sh. Chedi Lal and of victim Arjun u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He recorded the statement of Chedi Lal on 12.09.03 on whose statement the case was registered and within next 23 days, he recorded the statement of victim Arjun. He did not put the accused to Test Identification Parade as the accused was arrested by the subsequent I.O. However, he seized the offending vehicle and also prepared the site plan on the pointing out of Arjun.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the record. My findings on the issues are as follows : I S S U E No. 1
9. It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and Petition No. : 287/11 Page No. 4 of 12 Arjun Vs. Surjeet Singh negligent driving. To prove rash and negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
10. PW1 is the mother of the petitioner. She stated that on 26.08.03 at about 9.30 hrs. her son/injured was coming from Malviya Nagar market, New Delhi on foot. He was walking on proper way and correct side of the road. When he reached at BBlock, Malviya Nagar, near school, New Delhi then all of a sudden a Two Wheeler Scooter bearing no. DL 3S 4199 came in fast speed being driven by the respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the forceful impact her son fell down on the road and sustained mulitple injuries. He was removed to Trauma Center, AIIMS where his MLC was prepared. She stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent no.1 who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. During crossexamination she stated that she had witnessed the accident with her own eyes. She denied that she was not Petition No. : 287/11 Page No. 5 of 12 Arjun Vs. Surjeet Singh accompanying the injured on the day of accident. She also denied that she had provided wrong number of the scooter to the police subsequently. She also denied that no accident took place with scooter of respondent no.1. She also denied that the respondent no.1 has been falsely implicated in this case for compensation. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed certified copies of criminal case which include Final Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., statement of father of the petitioner, FIR, site plan, MLC, arrest memo, seizure memo etc. Charge sheet was filed against the respondent Surjeet Singh. On the MLC history of road traffic accident has been mentioned.
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled ''National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pushpa Rana'' reported as 2009 ACJ 287 has held that whenever criminal proceedings are placed on record on completion of investigation by the police, then that in itself is sufficient proof of the negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.
Thus, from the testimony of PW1 coupled with the documents, it is established that the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident on 26.08.03 at about 9.30 hrs. at BBlock, Malviya Nagar, near School, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of Two Wheeler scooter bearing no. DL3S4199 by the respondent. Documents placed on record would show that the respondent was the owner of the offending vehicle. I S S U E No. 2
11. The petitioner has claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by him in Petition No. : 287/11 Page No. 6 of 12 Arjun Vs. Surjeet Singh the accident. It is true that when a person is injured in a road accident, he is entitled to the compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.
12. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R. D. Hattangadi V/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 that : "Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas nonpecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as nonpecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit ;
(iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
Petition No. : 287/11 Page No. 7 of 12
Arjun Vs. Surjeet Singh Let me assess the compensation which the claimant is entitled to under different heads.
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
13. The petitioner after the accident was taken to Trauma Center, AIIMS where his MLC was prepared. He sustained compound fracture of left leg and CLW over the left leg. In the instant case the petitioner has not filed any medical bills on record. However, looking into the injuries he sustained, I award Rs. 3,000/ to the petitioner towards medical expenses. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
14. The petitioner sustained compound fracture of left leg and CLW over the left leg. He sustained grievous injuries. He has suffered lot of pain and trauma due to the injuries. Keeping in view the injuries he sustained and the treatment he underwent, I award Rs. 25,000/ to the petitioner towards Pain and Sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
15. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident. He must have advised special diet for early recovery. The injuries on his person were such that he must have taken the help of attendant for his daily routine. Keeping in view all these facts, I award Rs. 18,000/ to the petitioner towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
Petition No. : 287/11 Page No. 8 of 12
Arjun Vs. Surjeet Singh LOSS OF STUDIES :
16. PW1 has stated that due to the injuries sustained in the accident the petitioner has to left his studies for a long time. He reached at last from first line in his study and he suffered loss of studies. Taking into consideration the injuries suffered by the petitioner in the accident, I award Rs. 30,000/ to the petitioner towards loss of studies.
17. Thus, the total compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner is assessed as under :
Medical Expenses : Rs. 3,000/
Pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life : Rs. 25,000/
Special diet, Conveyance & Attendant Charges : Rs. 18,000/
Loss of Studies : Rs. 30,000/
============
TOTAL : Rs. 76,000/
============
LIABILITY
18. As the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent so, primary liability to compensate the petitioner remains with that of respondent. Since the vehicle was owned by respondent, so, he becomes vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. In the instant case, the respondent has taken the plea that there is delay in lodging the FIR as the accident had taken place on 26.08.2003 whereas the FIR was lodged after 1617 days. He also Petition No. : 287/11 Page No. 9 of 12 Arjun Vs. Surjeet Singh submitted that he is acquitted by the criminal Court. R1W2 has stated that the accident took place on 26.08.2003 and the FIR was registered on 12.09.2013. The contention raised by Ld. counsel for the respondent is misplaced. I find, the respondent has failed to establish that the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation as there is delay in lodging the FIR. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & Ors. 2011 (3) LRC 60 (SC) that "delay in lodging the FIR cannot be ground to deny justice to victim - If Courts finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered then even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground".
19. The other contention raised by Ld. counsel for the respondent that since the respondent is acquitted in the criminal case so, no amount can be awarded against the respondent. It has been held in Nepal Singh Vs. Upender Singh MAC. App. No. 219/2007 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 13.08.2015 that "Acquittal of the appellant in the criminal trial does not affect the case of the respondent to seek compensation from him. In a petition to seek compensation u/s 166 MV Act, to prove the negligence, the standard proof required to hold a person liable to pay compensation is not the same as in a criminal trial. In a criminal trial the standard of proof required to hold a person guilty is that of 'beyond reasonable doubt' whereas in a claim petition, it is the 'preponderance of probabilities'". Petition No. : 287/11 Page No. 10 of 12
Arjun Vs. Surjeet Singh
20. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
RELIEF
21. In view of my findings, I award a sum of Rs. 76,000/ (Rs. Seventy Six Thousand only) to the petitioner as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation (except the period from 11.09.2012 till 28.07.2014).
22. Respondent is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioner directly in the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch within 30 days from today failing which he shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
23. Respondent is directed to file the compliance report of his having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
24. Respondent is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
Petition No. : 287/11 Page No. 11 of 12
Arjun Vs. Surjeet Singh
25. Respondent shall intimate to the petitioner about his having deposited the cheque in favor in terms of the award, at his address mentioned in the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
26. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the parties for necessary compliance.
27. The case is now fixed for compliance for 19.09.2015.
Announced in the Open Court
on 19th Day of August, 2015 (NEELAM SINGH)
Presiding Officer : MACT
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 19.08.2015
Petition No. : 287/11 Page No. 12 of 12