Delhi District Court
Master Arsh vs Saravjeet Singh & Ors on 15 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN:
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT/ SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Suit No. 206/13
FIR No. 284/2012
PSIndrapuram
Master Arsh Vs Saravjeet Singh & ors
Unique Identification number: 02406C0214742013
Injury Case
Master Arsh S/o Sh. Sageer Ahmed
(Represented through its natural guardian)
R/o House no. G10A, Abul Fazal, Okhla, New Delhi 110025
........................... Petitioner/Claimant
Versus
1. Sh. Saravjeet Singh S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh (driver)
R/o House no. 225, Station Road, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh
2. Sh. Harjeet Kaur S/o Sh. Balbir Singh (owner)
R/o House no. 10, Old Govind Pura Extention,
Gali no. 7, Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110092
3. The New India Assurance Company Limited
2nd Floor, Jeewan Deep Building, 8, Parliament Street, New Delhi110001
.....................Respondents
Initial date of Institution : 02.03.2013 Date of reserving the judgment : 15.10.2014 Suit no. 206/13, Master Arsh Vs Saravjeet Singh & ors (Pg 1 of 8) Date of pronouncement : 15.10.2014 Judgment:
1. The present claim petition filed u/s 166/140 Motor Vehicle Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.02.2012 at around 03.00pm, when injured Master Arsh was standing in front of his house at 171, Kama Vashila, Sector1, Ghaziabad, Uttar Praadesh, offending car bearing no. DL7CH6113 driven by R1 in rash and negligent manner hit the minor injured due to which he fell down and suffered grievous injuries, thereafter immediately removed to Pushpanjali Crosslay Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad.
3. An FIR No. 284/12 under Section 279/338 IPC, PSIndrapuram was registered on the complaint filed by PW1 Sageer Ahmed, father of the minor petitioner on 16.02.2012. During investigation police prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, collected discharge summary , X ray reports of minor petitioner Master Arsh, seized the offending vehicle i.e Omni car bearing no. DL7CH6113, conducted its mechanical inspection, arrested respondent no.1 driver. On completion of investigation found respondent no.1 driver accused of rash and negligent driving, hence chargesheeted him for the commission of offence u/s 279/338 IPC.
4. During proceedings, insurance company in its WS raised the plea that the FIR was lodged belatedly and also reserved its right to raise statutory defence but admitted that offending vehicle was insured on the day of accident. R1 and R2 in WS took the plea that accident was not caused by the offending vehicle and Suit no. 206/13, Master Arsh Vs Saravjeet Singh & ors (Pg 2 of 8) false FIR was registered by the police.
5. From pleadings, following issues were framed: (1.) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 16.02.2012 at about 03.00pm, involving offending vehicle i.e Maruti Van bearing no. DL7CH6113 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent/driver, owned by respondent/owner and insured by respondent no. 3 (insurance company)? OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?
(3) Relief.
6. During evidence, Sageer Ahmed father of the minor petitioner examined himself as PW1. No evidence is led by any other respondents. Vide order dated 22.08.2014 interest of the petitioner was closed from 19.03.2014 till the conclusion of PE. PE closed on 15.10.2014, hence petitioner is not entitled to interest from 19.03.2014 till the conclusion of PE i.e 15.10.2014.
7. After hearing arguments and considering the material on record, my issue wise findings are as follows: Issue no. 1 (Negligence)
8. PW1 Sageer Ahmed father of the minor petitioner in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/1) stated that minor petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and Suit no. 206/13, Master Arsh Vs Saravjeet Singh & ors (Pg 3 of 8) negligent driving of R1, though he is not the eye witness, his statement is duly corroborated by police investigation. Police during investigation also found respondent no.1 accused of rash and negligent driving hence chargesheet him for commission of offence u/s 279/338 IPC. No evidence to the contrary led by driver and owner.
9. Ld. counsel for the insurance company stated that FIR was lodged after 20 days of the accident and the insurance policy expired on 17.02.2012, this itself creates doubts over the veracity of the accident. This submission of the counsel for the insurance company do not appear to have any force because PW1 in cross examination deposed that he could not lodged the FIR as busy in the treatment of the child. Further in cross examination PW1 stated that driver himself taken the injured to the hospital after accident. Discharge summary also suggests that minor petitioner suffered road traffic injuries on 16.02.2012.
10. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case titled "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. Suit no. 206/13, Master Arsh Vs Saravjeet Singh & ors (Pg 4 of 8) 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.
11. In view of the above discussion, petitioner able to prove that he suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the R1. Accordingly the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Issue no 2 (Compensation) Medical Expenses :
12. PW1 in his affidavit of evidence stated that after accident minor petitioner was taken to Pushpanjali Crosslay hospital. Discharge summary as well as X ray (Ex. PW1/C colly) shows that petitioner admitted on 16.02.2012, thereafter discharged on 18.02.2012 and diagnosed to have suffered "fracture shaft femur right mid 1/3rd". Petitioner's internal fixation operation was conducted on 17.02.2012. Petitioner for claiming expenses relied upon medical bills Ex.
PW1/3 collectively for a total sum of Rs. 68.394/. Nothing came in cross Suit no. 206/13, Master Arsh Vs Saravjeet Singh & ors (Pg 5 of 8) examination to dispute the genuineness of these bills, hence a total sum of Rs. 68,394/ are granted to the petitioner towards medical expenses to the petitioner.
13. Compensation for pain and suffering: Petitioner is found to have suffered femur fracture injuries. Keeping in view nature of injuries, duration of treatment and trauma of accident, a sum of Rs. 50,000/ is granted towards pain and suffering.
14. Loss of Studies /income: Minor petitioner is around 2 years at the time of accident, therefore, no compensation could be granted to the petitioner under this head.
15. Compensation for Special Diet, Attendant Charges and Conveyance: PW1 in his affidavit of evidence not claimed any expenses under present head, however this court is obliged to grant just compensation. It is natural that present injuries requires substantial expenses under present head. Hence a sum of Rs. 10,000/ each granted under attendant, conveyance and special diet charges. Thus total sum of Rs. 30,000/is granted under this head.
16. Thus, the total compensation to which petitioner is entitled comes as under: S.No Details Amount 1 Compensation for medical expenses Rs.68,394/ 2 Compensation for special diet, attendant charges Rs. 30,000/ Suit no. 206/13, Master Arsh Vs Saravjeet Singh & ors (Pg 6 of 8) and conveyance 3 Compensation for pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/ Total Rs. 1,48,394/ Hence, the petitioner is awarded a total amount of Rs. 1,48,394/(Rupees One lac forty eight thousand three hundred ninety four only). Relief :
17. The petitioner/injured Master Arsh is hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 1,48,394/ (Rupees One lac forty eight thousand three hundred ninety four only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present petition till the date of realization in favour of petitioner against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several (excluding interest from 19.03.2014 to 15.10.2014).
18. The driver R1 is the principal tort feasor whereas R2 being the owner vicariously liable for the acts of R1, R3 being insurance company liable to indemnify the owner.
19. In view of the above discussion, insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount in the court within a period of 30 days from today alongwith the interest @ 9% per annum, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be charged for the period of delay.
Suit no. 206/13, Master Arsh Vs Saravjeet Singh & ors (Pg 7 of 8)
20. The award amount shall be deposited in the account of petitioner with the State Bank of India and shall be released where after to the petitioner.
21. The petitioner is directed to get their account opened at State Bank of India, Saket Branch, after receiving the copy of the award. The copy of the award shall be given to the parties. It is directed that the respondent insurance company will make an endorsement of the title of the case, suit number, name of the parties and other relevant details while depositing the cheque in the bank.
The compliance be made by all concerned.
22. Copy of this order be given dasti to the parties.
23. Put up for receiving the compliance on 15.11.2014.
Announced in open Court
Dated: 15.10.2014 (Ajay Kumar Jain)
POMACT02/(South East District)
Saket, New Delhi/15.10.2014
Suit no. 206/13, Master Arsh Vs Saravjeet Singh & ors (Pg 8 of 8)