Delhi District Court
Sh. Suresh Chandra vs Farukh on 13 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH SANJAY SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: EAST DISTRICT:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
DAR No.: 11150/16
Unique Case I.D. No.: 0240 2C03 6219 2014
Sh. Suresh Chandra
S/o Sh. Jagdish Chandra
R/o D-10, GF, St. No. 6, Main Road,
Shashi Garden, Mayur Vihar Phase-I,
Delhi-110091 ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Farukh
S/o. Sh. Akhtar
R/o Vill. Shahwazpur, PO Mandowar,
Distt. Bijnor, U.P. ..... Driver
2. Vrinda Travels
H. No. G-58, 1st Floor,
New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon,
Haryana ..... Owner
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Office.: 2E/9, 2nd Floor,
Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi ..... Insurer
..... Respondents
Date of institution : 15.11.2014
Reserved for orders : 08.11.2017
Date of Award : 13.11.2017
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Suresh Chandra (the petitioner) was riding scooty bearing registration No. DL 7S AK 0594 with Mr. Raju on the pillion seat at 11.50 p.m. on 24.09.2014 on Nehar Road, behind PS Kalyanpuri near Bakua Gas Agency when he was hit by Taxi bearing registration No. HR 55 S 3881 (offending vehicle) allegedly driven rashly by the respondent No. 1 and consequently, the petitioner and the pillion rider suffered multiple injuries.
DAR No.: 11150/2016 Suresh vs Farukh & Ors. 1 of 11
2. The petitioner instituted an accident claim case in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR), which was treated as a petition under section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act), submitted by the local police on the basis of evidence collected in the investigation of FIR No. 878/14 under section 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at PS Kalyanpuri impleading the driver and the registered owner of the offending vehicle as the respondent No. 1 and 2, and the respondent No. 3 / insurer with which the offending vehicle was insured for the period in question.
3. The respondent No. 1 and 2, in their joint written statement, stated that the respondent No. 1 had not caused any accident and the respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving license. They stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the relevant time.
4. The respondent No. 3 / insurer conceded that the offending vehicle was insured for the relevant period. It offered a sum of Rs. 95,700/- to the petitioner. The said offer was not acceptable to the petitioner.
Issues:
5. On the pleadings, following issues were framed :
(i) Whether the petitioner sustained grievous injury in a motor vehicular accident on 24.09.2014 at about 11.50 p.m. at Nehar Road, near Gas Agency, behind PS Kalyanpuri within jurisdiction of PS Kalyanpuri due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR 55 S 3881 by the respondent No. 1?
(OPP) DAR No.: 11150/2016 Suresh vs Farukh & Ors. 2 of 11
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the award amount, if so, at what rate of interest and for which period?
(OPP)
(iv) Relief?
Evidence:
6. The petitioner (PW-1) filed evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He deposed about the manner of the accident. He relied on discharge summary (DOA: 25.09.2014 to DOD: 07.10.2014) Ex.PW1/1, bills of Rs. 80,370/- Ex.PW1/2 (colly), ITR for the year 2014-15 Ex.PW1/3 (colly), photocopy of Form 6 Mark 'X', treatment record including discharge summary (DOA: 05.01.2015 to DOD: 08.01.2015) Ex.PW1/4 (colly, 46 sheets), and driving license Ex.PW1/5.
7. PW-2 Manoj Kumar Sinha, Income Tax Officer, Bihar Sharif, Bihar proved income tax return of the petitioner for the assessment year 2013-14 Ex.PW2/1 (colly) and income tax return for the assessment year 2014-15 Ex.PW2/2 (colly). Final arguments :
8. I have heard final arguments of Sh. Jaswant Roy, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Seema Chhabra, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 / insurer.
9. I have examined the evidence, oral and documentary, and perused written arguments filed by the petitioner.
DAR No.: 11150/2016 Suresh vs Farukh & Ors. 3 of 11 Issue wise finding :
i) Whether the petitioner sustained grievous injury in a motor vehicular accident on 24.09.2014 at about 11.50 p.m. at Nehar Road, near Gas Agency, behind PS Kalyanpuri within jurisdiction of PS Kalyanpuri due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR 55 S 3881 by the respondent No. 1?
(OPP)
10. In order to discharge the burden to prove rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner appeared as PW-1. He deposed, in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the sequence of events leading to the accident.
11. The petitioner (PW-1) testified, in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, that on 24.09.2014 at 11.55 p.m., he was driving scooty bearing registration No. DL 7S AK 0594. He stated that when they reached at Kondli Road, opposite Gas Agency, near Block No. 2, Trilokpuri, Delhi, the offending vehicle came in high-speed and had hit the scooty with forceful impact, and due to the impact, the petitioner and the pillion rider had fallen on the road and suffered multiple injuries. The petitioner was examined as a case of road traffic accident (RTA) at 12.05 a.m. on 25.09.2014 in Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi. The petitioner was found to have sustained multiple injuries on his left leg and face. The petitioner received treatment as an indoor patient in GTB Hospital from 25.09.2014 to 07.10.2014. He received treatment from 05.01.2015 to 18.01.2015 in Bimla Devi Hospital. The petitioner suffered fracture left tibia shaft and fracture of left maxillary sinus and left zygomatic arch and lateral ball of left orbit. The petitioner was opined to have suffered 'grievous' injury.
DAR No.: 11150/2016 Suresh vs Farukh & Ors. 4 of 11
12. The evidence of the petitioner remained unchallenged. The respondent No. 1 and 2 did not challenge his testimony on the aspect of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. He categorically stated that the offending vehicle hit his vicky from front side. He stated that the accident happened while he crossed the road towards light at T-point. The respondent No. 1 neither stated nor deposed his version of the accident. The respondent No. 1 has not examined himself to depose his manner of the accident. The respondent No. 3 / insurer has also not examined the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 3 / insurer also not challenged his testimony.
13. From the FIR, it is clear that HC Satyavir reached at the place of the accident soon after the accident. He found TVS scooty bearing registration No. DL 7S AK 0594 in accidental condition and number plate of the car bearing registration No. HR 55 S 3881 at the place of the accident.
14. From the site plan of the place of the accident, it is evident that the place of the accident is near a turning point from Ghazipur road to Kondli Mor.
15. From the Mechanical Inspection Report (MIR) of TVS scooty bearing registration No. DL 7S AK 0594, it is evident that front wheel rim was disaligned, front mud-guard had dents and front number plate was pressed. Front head-light was damaged and front shockers were pressed. Handle bar was pressed and right mirror was in broken condition. Left side chassis floor was pressed / dented and rear lights and rear indicators were damaged.
DAR No.: 11150/2016 Suresh vs Farukh & Ors. 5 of 11
16. From the Mechanical Inspection Report (MIR) of the offending vehicle, it is evident that front bumper, grill and number plate were damaged. Front bonnet was dented and front wind screen glass was in broken condition. Left and right fender were dented and front radiator and AC condenser were pressed.
17. From the testimony of the petitioner (PW-1) and the documents, as referred above, it is evident that TVS scooty bearing registration No. DL 7S AK 0594 driven by the petitioner with the pillion rider was hit by the offending vehicle when the said scooty was taking right turn so as to come on the road leading to Kondli Mor from Ghazipur road on its front side. The accident had taken place in the first lane near the turning point. The respondent No. 1 has not explained why he could not avoid the collision. The respondent No. 1 had not taken requisite precaution so as to avoid the collision with a vehicle taking a right turn from a turning point. Negligence of the respondent No. 1 while driving the offending vehicle is evident from the fact that he did not observe requisite precaution so as to avoid the collision with a vehicle taking a right turn. It is obvious from the severe damages sustained by the said scooty and the offending vehicle that the respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle in high-speed and therefore, he could not prevent the accident. Therefore, it is proved that the respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and in that process, he caused grievous injury to the petitioner.
18. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
DAR No.: 11150/2016 Suresh vs Farukh & Ors. 6 of 11
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
19. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in question and therefore, he has a cause of action to seek compensation for the injuries.
Pain and suffering:
20. The petitioner was admitted in Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Delhi on 25.09.2014 at 12.05 a.m. as a case of road traffic accident (RTA). The petitioner had swelling on left lower limb and injury on lower limb. The petitioner received treatment as an indoor patient from 25.09.2014 to 07.10.2014 in GTB hospital. According to discharge summary Ex.PW1/1, the petitioner suffered fracture left tibia shaft, swelling and blackening on left face and left eye, loose incisor teeth lower jaw and laceration over left knee besides abrasions on right knee and left elbow. He was given conservative treatment. The petitioner was diagnosed to have suffered fracture maxillary with both bone fracture left leg. Mandibular region was fixed with wires. The petitioner had also suffered blunt trauma abdomen with grade-I liver injury and fracture of ribs. The petitioner was admitted in Bimla Devi Hospital on 05.01.2015 where he undergone open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Implants were inserted to fix fracture leg comminuted.
21. In view of the prolonged treatment, nature of the injuries, parts of the body injured and the nature of treatment, the petitioner deserves to be awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering.
DAR No.: 11150/2016 Suresh vs Farukh & Ors. 7 of 11 Medical expenses:
22. The petitioner has proved medical bills Ex.PW1/2 (colly) worth Rs. 70,247/-. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded Rs. 71,000/- towards medical expenses.
Loss of income:
23. As already observed, the petitioner was hospitalized since 25.09.2014 to 07.10.2014 and 05.01.2015 to 08.01.2015. Having regard to the age of the petitioner and nature of the injuries including the medical evidence regarding the treatment of the petitioner, he is entitled to loss of income for six months.
24. The petitioner stated that he was running a photoshop in Patna, Bihar. He examined PW-2 Manoj Kumar Sinha, Income Tax Officer, Bihar Sharif, Bihar who proved Income Tax Return of the petitioner for the assessment years 2013-14 Ex.PW2/1 and 2014-15 Ex.PW2/2. Perusal of income tax return for the assessment year 2013-14 Ex.PW2/1 would show that it was filed on 31.03.2015. Perusal of income tax return for the assessment year 2014-15 would show that it was filed on 12.05.2015. The date of the accident is 24.09.2014. It is established that both the income tax returns were filed more than six months after the date of the accident and therefore, such income tax returns cannot be considered as benchmark for the assessment of income of the petitioner. The petitioner has not proved his academic qualification. Admittedly, the petitioner was working for gain in Bihar. In the absence of the proof of avocation and income of the petitioner, the Tribunal is constrained to follow the benchmark of minimum wages as payable to unskilled worker in Bihar at the relevant time.
DAR No.: 11150/2016 Suresh vs Farukh & Ors. 8 of 11
25. Accordingly, monthly income of the petitioner is assumed as (186 x 26) = Rs. 4,836/-, it being the minimum wages payable to unskilled worker at the relevant time.
26. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded (4,836 x 6) 29,016/- (rounded of) Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income for six months.
Compensation for disfigurement / loss of teeth:
27. However, the petitioner deserves to be reasonably compensated as the petitioner suffered loss of six teeth due to the injuries suffered by him. Therefore, the petitioner is awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards disfigurement of his face or loss of teeth. Future medical expense:
28. Implant was inserted to fix the fracture of left leg of the petitioner. The petitioner is also undergoing treatment for implant of teeth. In the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner is awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical expenses. Special diet:
29. The petitioner sustained multiple injuries and received treatment as an indoor patient for considerable time. He also received treatment for the teeth loosened due to the accident. Therefore, it would be appropriate to award him Rs. 15,000/- towards special diet.
Conveyance:
30. The petitioner was admitted twice in Hospital and he visited the said hospital as an outdoor patient several times, he is awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance.
DAR No.: 11150/2016 Suresh vs Farukh & Ors. 9 of 11 Liability:
31. The respondent No. 3 / insurer has neither stated nor proved breach of any term and condition of insurance policy and therefore, it shall be liable to indemnify the respondent No. 2 / insured.
AWARD
32. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 3,01,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR (15.11.2014) till the date of award. The respondent No. 3 / insurer is directed to deposit Rs. 3,01,000/- alongwith interest, as ordered above, in the name of the petitioner with the Tribunal within one month from today. Otherwise, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR till realization. Copy of award be given to the parties. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court Sh. Sanjay Sharma Dated: 13th November, 2017 Presiding Officer MACT (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi DAR No.: 11150/2016 Suresh vs Farukh & Ors. 10 of 11 DAR No. 11150/16 13.11.2017 Present : Sh. Jaswant Roy, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for R1 / driver and R2 / owner.
Ms. Seema Chhabra, Advocate for R3 / Insurance Co.
Vide separate judgment, award is passed. To come up for compliance on 12.12.2017.
Sanjay Sharma PO MACT (East)/KKD Delhi/13.11.2017.
DAR No.: 11150/2016 Suresh vs Farukh & Ors. 11 of 11