Delhi District Court
Deepank Tanwar vs Navdeep on 22 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJLI GOEL, PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL2, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No.272/14
Date of Institution: 13.02.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
Deepank Tanwar
S/o Shri Ashok Tanwar
R/o H. No. T75/1, Kabul Line
Delhi Cantt.
New Delhi. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. Navdeep
S/o Shri Balbir Singh
R/o H. No. 331, Jharoda Kalan
New Delhi 110072.
2. Shri Mahipal (ought to be Manpal)
S/o Shri Balbir Singh
R/o VPO Badli, Pana Chhuran
Presently at Jhajjar District
Haryana.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
ICICI Lombard House 414
Veer Savarkar Marg
Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple
Prabhadevi, Mumbai400025. ...Respondents
Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 1 of 27 Final Arguments heard : 24.07.2014 Award reserved for : 22.08.2014 Date of Award : 22.08.2014 AWARD
1. Vide this judgmentcumaward, I proceed to decide the petition filed u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as amended uptodate (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of compensation in a road accident.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 20.09.2013 the petitioner along with his friend/ colleague Deepak S/o Shri Balbir Singh, R/o H. No. C678, Rajender Park, Gurgaon was going on a motorcycle of one of their friends namely Abhishek bearing No.HR26BT6515 and they were going towards Gurgaon after completing their study and the petitioner was the pillion rider. It is averred that when they reached on the Farukh NagarGurgaon Road, ahead of petrol pump Dayal Vihar, where the fellow friend of the petitioner namely Abhishek was standing besides the road, after seeing him, the friend of the petitioner Deepak stopped the motorcycle and they were talking to their friend. It is averred that in the meanwhile at about 2.15 to 2.20 p.m. one Swift car bearing No.HR14AJ8572 came from the side of Gurgaon in a very high speed and was driven in a very rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner from the wrong side. It is averred that due to the powerful impact the petitioner along with his friend Deepak and their Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 2 of 27 motorcycle fell down on the road. It is averred that the petitioner received multiple injuries on all parts of his body and grievous injuries on his legs. It is averred that the friend of the petitioner Deepak as well as Abhishek who was standing besides the road also received injuries on their body. It is averred that instead of looking after the petitioner and his injured friends, the driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot along with his vehicle. It is stated that in respect of the accident FIR No.233/13 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Rajendra Park on 21.09.2013. Thereafter the petitioner along with his friends was admitted to SGT Hospital, Budhela. It is stated that the injured was taken to SGT Hospital, Budhela and was referred to Paras Hospital on the same day where he was operated and discharged on 25.9.2013. On 28.11.2013 the petitioner went to Indian Spinal Injuries Centre for consultation and on 2.1.2014 he went to Primus Super Speciality Hospital, Chanakyapuri, Delhi and was again operated on 3.1.2014 and was discharged on 4.1.2014. It is averred that the said accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 who was driving the car in a very rash and negligent manner and with a very high speed, without obeying the traffic rules and regulations.
3. It is averred that the petitioner is a student of SGT Institute of Engineering & Technology, Gurgaon and was doing B. Tech and had deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/ as fees on 23.08.2012 but due to the said accident, the petitioner could not attend his examinations and had suffered a Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 3 of 27 huge loss of his studies as the whole year was spoilt due to not giving of exams. It is averred that the petitioner is a very hard working and brilliant student but due to the said accident he could not appear in his examinations and one year of the petitioner's study was totally ruined due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is averred that the petitioner had suffered a huge financial loss of Rs.60,000/ as fees submitted by the petitioner on 23.08.2013. It is averred that the petitioner remains under treatment from 20.09.2013 till date and more than a sum of Rs. 1,74,451/ was spent upon the petitioner till date upon his treatment, operations and other medical checkups etc. Besides the petitioner/injured had to spend a sum of Rs.30,000/ as transportation charges and Rs.25,000/ on special diet. It is averred that the petitioner also had to hire an attendant to look after him for about 3 months and he had to pay a salary of Rs.6,000/ to him. It is averred that due to the accident, not only the petitioner but also his family members had suffered great mental pain, injury and financial loss besides the loss of his whole career as the petitioner was just 22 years old and a bright future was in front of the petitioner but due to the spoiling of one year it had become very difficult for him to continue his course/studies as before. It is prayed that an amount of Rs.25,00,000/ be awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
4. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 taking the preliminary objections that there is no cause of action in favour of Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 4 of 27 the petitioner and against the respondents No.1 and 2. It is averred that no accident involving the vehicle bearing No.HR14AJ8572 had ever taken place on the alleged date, time and place of the accident and the respondent No.1 and vehicle of respondent No.2 had been falsely implicated in the case. It is averred that the vehicle bearing No.HR14AJ8572 is insured with M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. which is respondent No.3 and if the petitioner is held entitled for any compensation, then the liability would be of the respondent No.3. It is averred that the petition is bad for nonjoinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties as the driver and owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing No.HR26BT6516 have not been impleaded as necessary parties. The averments made in the claim petition were denied. It is averred that the alleged FIR had been lodged by the police in collusion with the petitioner/complainant in order to get compensation/extort money from the respondents No.1 and 2. It is averred that the vehicle of the respondent No.2 has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is averred that the name of the respondent No.2 who is the owner of the alleged offending vehicle bearing No.HR14AJ8572 has been wrongly mentioned in the petition as Mahipal, however, the name of the respondent No.2 is Manpal. It is averred that the respondent No.1 has been falsely implicated in the present case.
5. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 taking the preliminary objections that no notice of the alleged accident was given to the respondent No.3 by the owner of the insured vehicle, i.e. Swift car bearing Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 5 of 27 registration No.HR14AJ8572, and therefore, the respondent No.3 has no liability. It is averred that the particulars of the driving licence of the driver of the insured vehicle have not been given by the owner of the insured vehicle at the time of the alleged accident and as such it is presumed, unless he proves to the contrary, that the driver of the insured vehicle had no valid and effective driving license. It is averred that the facts stated in the petition are false, baseless, frivolous and highly concocted and the petition has been filed by the petitioner, in collusion with the respondents No.1 and 2 just with a view to extort money from the respondent No.3 and to cause wrongful loss to the respondent No.3 and wrongful gain to the petitioner. It is averred that the petitioner was pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR26BT6515 but the petitioner had failed to furnish any particulars in respect of the motorcycle intentionally and deliberately as to who owns the said motorcycle, and as to whether the said motorcycle was insured at the relevant time and that had he got any claim from the insurer of the said motorcycle etc. It is averred that the petitioner had also not furnished the particulars of the driving license of the driver of the motorcycle intentionally and deliberately, which impliedly means that the driver of the motorcycle has/had no valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident. It is averred that the present petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties, i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration No.HR26BT6515. The averments made in the claim petition were denied. It is averred that from a bare perusal of the site map of the spot it Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 6 of 27 appears that no such accident, as alleged by the petitioner had ever taken place. Further the fact that there was a delay of about 15 hours in informing the local police station about the alleged accident proves that no accident took place, but the FIR in question was an act of active connivance between the petitioner and the respondents No.1 and 2 to extort money from the respondent No.3 and to cause wrongful loss to the respondent No.3 and wrongful gain to the petitioner. It is averred that the treatment allegedly given to the petitioner was not due to the accident, which allegedly took place on 20th September, 2013. It is averred that the Swift Car bearing registration No.HR14AJ8572 was not involved in the accident which allegedly took place on 20th September, 2013. It is stated that the Swift Car bearing registration No.HR14AJ8572 was insured in the name of the respondent No.2 vide policy No.3001/MI00984125/00/000, which was effective from 24th December, 2012 to 23rd December, 2013 subject to terms, conditions, exceptions, limitations, exclusions and warranties of the policy.
6. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed vide order dated 24.03.2014:
1. Whether the petitioner/injured sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 20.09.2013 between 02.15 to 2.20 p.m. near Petrol Pump, Daya Vihar, Farukh Nagar, Gurgaon Road caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR14AJ8572 driven by respondent no.1 and Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 7 of 27 owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
7. The petitioner entered into the witness box as PW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. He stated that due to the accident he was not able to join his college at SGT Institute of Engineering and Technology and could not take his examinations and his whole year was spoilt due to not giving the exams. He stated that due to the said accident, he had to suffer great mental pain, agony, loss of love and affection and loss of social activities etc. He stated that he is still under treatment and it would take a long time for him to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident. He stated that he had already spent a sum of Rs.1,88,207/ upon his treatment and he was still under treatment. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C is Ex.PW1/1, copy of FIR is Ex.PW1/2, copy of MLC is Ex.PW1/3, copy of site plan is Ex.PW1/4, copy of seizure memo is Ex.PW1/5, copy of driving license of the respondent No.1 is Ex.PW1/6, copy of insurance policy is Ex.PW1/7, copy of superdginama is Ex.PW1/8, copy of R.C of the offending vehicle is Ex.PW1/9, copy of voter ID of the petitioner is Ex.PW1/10, copy of medical bills is Ex.PW1/11 (colly) and copy of medical prescriptions and discharge summary is Ex.PW1/12 (colly) and copy of fees receipt of the petitioner is Ex.PW1/13. There is no Ex.PW1/1 Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 8 of 27 and Ex.PW1/13 on the file. PE was closed on 17.5.2014. It was stated by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 that no RE was to be led on behalf of the respondent No.3 and RE was closed on 5.7.2014.
8. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 and perused the record. The petitioner was also examined on 24.7.2014 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court on 11.1.2013 in MACA No.792/2006 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ranjit Pandey and Ors.
9. My findings on the specific issues are as under:
Issue No.1
10. As the petition has been filed U/s 166 M.V Act it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that he sustained injuries in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle it has been held in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pushpa Rana & Another 2009 Accident Claims Journal 287 as follows:
"The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents/claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 9 of 27 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V. Meena Variyal (supra). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of offending vehicle (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on part of the driver."
It is established law that in a claim petition under Motor Vehicle Act, the standard of proof to establish rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle is not at par with the criminal case where such rashness and negligence is required to be proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. In Kaushnamma Begum and others v. New India Assurance Company Limited, it was inter alia held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 10 of 27 involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injury or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
11. The case of the petitioner is that on 20.09.2013 the petitioner along with his friend/ colleague Deepak S/o Shri Balbir Singh, R/o H. No. C678, Rajender Park, Gurgaon was going on a motorcycle of one of their friends namely Abhishek bearing No.HR26BT6515 and they were going towards Gurgaon after completing their study and the petitioner was the pillion rider. It was averred that when they reached on the Farukh NagarGurgaon Road, ahead of petrol pump Dayal Vihar, where the fellow friend of the petitioner namely Abhishek was standing besides the road, after seeing him, the friend of the petitioner Deepak stopped the motorcycle and they were talking to their friend. It was averred that in the meanwhile at about 2.15 to 2.20 p.m. one Swift car bearing No.HR14AJ8572 came from the side of Gurgaon in a very high speed and was driven in a very rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner from the wrong side. It was averred that due to the powerful impact the petitioner along with his friend Deepak and their motorcycle fell down on the road and the petitioner received multiple injuries on all parts of his body and grievous injuries on his legs. The friend of the petitioner Deepak as well as Abhishek who was standing besides the road also received injuries on their body. It was averred that instead of looking after the petitioner and his injured friends, the driver of the offending vehicle fled Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 11 of 27 away from the spot along with his vehicle. It was stated that in respect of the accident FIR No.233/13 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Rajendra Park on 21.09.2013. Thereafter the petitioner along with his friends was admitted to SGT Hospital, Budhela. In paras 2 and 3 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A the petitioner had deposed about the mode and manner of the accident.
12. The petitioner has placed on record copy of the criminal record consisting of copy of FIR which is Ex.PW1/2, copy of MLC which is Ex.PW1/3, copy of site plan which is Ex.PW1/4, copy of seizure memo of the offending vehicle which is Ex.PW1/5, copy of driving license of the respondent No.1 which is Ex.PW1/6, copy of insurance policy which is Ex.PW1/7, copy of superdginama which is Ex.PW1/8 and copy of R.C of the offending vehicle which is Ex.PW1/9. As per the FIR No.233/13 under sections 279/337 IPC, PS Rajendra Park, District Gurgaon the case was registered on the basis of complaint of Deepak who was driving the motorcycle on which the petitioner was the pillion rider wherein he had stated about the manner of the accident.
13. The respondents No.1 and 2 had filed their written statement averring that no accident involving the vehicle bearing No.HR14AJ8572 had ever taken place on the alleged date, time and place of the accident and the respondent No.1 and vehicle of respondent No.2 had been falsely implicated in the case. It was averred that the alleged FIR had been lodged by the police in Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 12 of 27 collusion with the petitioner/complainant in order to get compensation/extort money from the respondents No.1 and 2. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 PW1 stated that the accident had taken place on 20.09.2013. He was a pillion rider. He stated that the motorcycle was driven by his friend namely Deepak. He stated that the police had recorded his statement the day after the accident. He stated that one lady driving a car took him to the hospital. He stated that he did not make the call on 100 Number nor his friend made the call but after reaching the hospital his friend called up his (my) family members. He stated that he did not meet any police person at the hospital. He denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of his friend or that the accident had not taken place with the alleged offending vehicle.
14. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 PW1 stated that he did not have any DL. He stated that his friend who was driving the motorcycle was in possession of DL. He was not aware if police had seized the DL of his friend. He stated that it was a Swift Dzire of white colour. He did not know or identified the driver of the offending vehicle from before. He stated that his classes were from 9.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. He stated that there was a distance of about 15 minutes or 2 k.m. between his institute and the spot of the accident. He admitted that on the day of the accident police did not record his statement volunteered it was recorded the next day. He stated that his friend Deepak who was driving the motorcycle had Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 13 of 27 not fallen unconscious. He had also sustained injury in the accident. He denied the suggestion that his friend was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner or that his friend was not in possession of DL and as such his DL was not seized in the present case or that the accident had not taken place with the alleged offending vehicle or that the said vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case.
15. PW1 thus reiterated that the accident had taken place on 20.09.2013 and that he was a pillion rider and the motorcycle was driven by his friend namely Deepak which was also so stated in the FIR. He stated that the police had recorded his statement the day after the accident. He stated that one lady driving a car took him to the hospital. PW1 was crossexamined on making a call to the police and he stated that he did not make the call on 100 Number nor his friend made the call but after reaching the hospital his friend called up his (my) family members. He also stated that he did not meet any police person at the hospital. PW1 stated that he did not have any DL but that is immaterial as there is nothing to show that PW1 was driving the motorcyle at the time of the accident. PW1 stated that his friend who was driving the motorcycle was in possession of DL but he was not aware if police had seized the DL of his friend. PW1 also stated that it was a Swift Dzire of white colour though he did not know or identified the driver of the offending vehicle from before. He stated that his classes were from 9.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. He stated that there was a distance of about 15 minutes or 2 k.m. between his institute Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 14 of 27 and the spot of the accident and there is nothing to show otherwise. He stated that his friend Deepak who was driving the motorcycle had not fallen unconscious but he had also sustained injury in the accident. As such nothing material has come out in the crossexamination of PW1 to doubt the manner in which the accident had taken place. The respondent No.3 had contended that there was a delay of about 15 hours in reporting the alleged accident which proves that the petitioner and the respondents No.1 and 2 are in connivance with each other to extort money from the respondent No.3 and to cause wrongful loss to the respondent No.3 and wrongful gain to the petitioner. However no such suggestion was put to the petitioner nor was he cross examined on the delay in lodging the FIR. Moreover the MLC is dated 20.9.2013 and shows the time of arrival in the hospital as 3.14 p.m. i.e. soon after the accident and also records alleged history of RTA.
16. The respondents No. 1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle have not led any evidence to dispute the version put forth by the petitioner or in the criminal record or to prove any other version of the accident. Further the criminal record has been placed on record which shows that the FIR has been registered against the respondent No.1 for the offence under Sections 279/337 IPC. In Basant Kaur and others v. Chattar Pal Singh and others 2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB) it was observed that registration of criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle was enough to record a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 15 of 27 the accident. There is absolutely no evidence from the respondents to disprove the particulars of the accident or the involvement of vehicle No.HR 14AJ8572. There is also nothing to show that the respondent No.1 has made any complaint against his false implication in the present case. In view of the testimony of PW1 and documents on record which have remained unrebutted, the negligence of the respondent No.1 has been prima facie proved.
17. It was stated that due to the powerful impact the petitioner along with his friend Deepak and their motorcycle fell down on the road and the petitioner received multiple injuries on all parts of his body and grievous injuries on his legs. The friend of the petitioner Deepak as well as Abhishek who was standing besides the road also received injuries on their body. Thereafter the petitioner along with his friends was admitted to SGT Hospital, Budhela. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner. Thus it stands established that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the alleged accident. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No.2
18. Since issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioner he would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Act. The law is well settled that the compensation has to be awarded in personal injury Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 16 of 27 cases under the following heads: (1) for loss of earnings during the period of treatment (2) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (3) expenses suffered by him on his treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food etc. In addition, he is further entitled to non pecuniary damages/general damages which include (1) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries and (2) loss of expectation of life.
MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT
19. The case of petitioner is that due to the accident on 20.9.2013 he fell down on the road and received multiple injuries on all parts of his body and grievous injuries on his legs. Thereafter he was admitted to SGT Hospital, Budhela. It was stated that the injured was taken to SGT Hospital, Budhela and was referred to Paras Hospital on the same day where he was operated and discharged on 25.9.2013. On 28.11.2013 the petitioner went to Indian Spinal Injuries Centre for consultation and on 2.1.2014 he went to Primus Super Speciality Hospital, Chanakyapuri, Delhi and was again operated on 3.1.2014 and was discharged on 4.1.2014. It was averred that the petitioner remains under treatment from 20.09.2013 till date and more than a sum of Rs. 1,74,451/ was spent upon the petitioner till date upon his treatment, operations and other medical checkups etc. PW1 in paras 2, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. He stated that he was still Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 17 of 27 under treatment and it would take a long time for him to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident. He stated that Rs.1,88,207/ had already been spent on his treatment and he was still under treatment. Copy of medical bills is Ex.PW1/11 (colly) and copy of medical prescriptions and discharge summary is Ex.PW1/12 (colly).
20. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The documents filed show that the petitioner had sustained wound right arm with biceps tendon tear, wound right forearm with flexor and extensor Ms injury, fracture 5th MC Neck, Traumatic Amputation of Right little finger through pulp, compound fracture S/C right femur, compound communited fracture (right) patella and fracture right tibia fibula. Further he remained admitted in hospital from 20.09.2013 to 25.09.2013 and from 3.1.2014 to 4.1.2014. Thus the injuries were serious in nature. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 PW1 denied the suggestion that the medical bills filed by him were forged and fabricated. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 PW1 stated that he was discharged from Paras Hospital on 25.09.2013 or 26.09.2013. Thus there is nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability due to the accident. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner had sustained injuries and underwent treatment for the same. The petitioner has filed original bills in respect of expenditure on medicines for a sum of Rs. Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 18 of 27 1,77,907/ and a couple of bills were only photocopies. Looking to the nature of the injuries the petitioner would be entitled to the amount of the bills. At the same time the petitioner would incur some expenditure towards medicines and medical treatment even in the future. As such an amount of Rs.1,90,000/ (Rs.One Lakh Ninety Thousand only) is awarded towards medical expenses including the amount of the bills and towards future treatment. PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
21. It has been held in Divisional Controller, K. S. R. T. C v Mahadeva Shetty and another AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4172 as under:
13."The damages for vehicular accidents are in the nature of compensation in money for loss of any kind caused to any person. In case of personal injury the position is different from loss of property. In the later case there is possibility of repair or restoration. But in the case of personal injury, the possibility of repair or restoration is practically nonexistent. In Parry V. Cleaver (1969 1 All. E. R. 555) Lord Morris stated as follows:
"To compensate in money for pain and for the physical consequences is invariably difficult, but...... no other process can be devised than that of making monetary assessment."
The case of the petitioner is that due to the accident on 20.9.2013 he fell down on the road and received multiple injuries on all parts of his body and grievous injuries on his legs. Thereafter he was admitted to SGT Hospital, Budhela. It Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 19 of 27 was stated that the injured was taken to SGT Hospital, Budhela and was referred to Paras Hospital on the same day where he was operated and discharged on 25.9.2013. On 28.11.2013 the petitioner went to Indian Spinal Injuries Centre for consultation and on 2.1.2014 he went to Primus Super Speciality Hospital, Chanakyapuri, Delhi and was again operated on 3.1.2014 and was discharged on 4.1.2014. It was averred that the petitioner remains under treatment from 20.09.2013 till date. He stated that he was still under treatment and it would take a long time for him to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident. He also stated that due to the accident he had suffer great mental pain, agony, loss of love and affection and loss of social activities etc. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The documents filed show that the petitioner had sustained wound right arm with biceps tendon tear, wound right forearm with flexor and extensor Ms injury, fracture 5th MC Neck, Traumatic Amputation of Right little finger through pulp, compound fracture S/C right femur, compound communited fracture (right) patella and fracture right tibia fibula. Further he remained admitted in hospital from 20.09.2013 to 25.09.2013 and from 3.1.2014 to 4.1.2014. Thus the injuries were serious in nature. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability. Looking at the nature of injuries and extent of treatment and that the accident pertains to the year 2013, the petitioner is awarded Rs.30,000/ (Rs.Thirty Thousand only) for pain and suffering.
Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 20 of 27
22. The petitioner was around 19 years of age at the time of the accident. Notice can be taken of the fact that on account of injuries sustained by him the petitioner may not have been able to perform his day to day duties towards his family and on account of the injuries suffered by him the petitioner may not have been able to enjoy the amenities of life. In the circumstances the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/ (Rs.Ten Thousand Only) for loss of amenities of life. He would also be entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/ towards disfiguration. The petitioner cannot however be held to be entitled to any amount towards loss of expectation of life.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
23. The petitioner, in the claim petition had stated that he had spent Rs.30,000/ as transportation charges. One bill was filed showing ambulance charges. Although the petitioner has not filed any document on record in order to prove the expenditure on conveyance however, notice can be taken of the fact that after the accident the petitioner was taken to SGT Hospital, Budhela and thereafter he was referred to Paras Hospital and thereafter he went to other hospitals for treatment and that after discharge from hospital he might have hired the services of private conveyance as he would not have been able to drive of his own or to use public conveyance. In the circumstances a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs. Five Thousand only) would be just and proper towards conveyance charges.
Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 21 of 27
24. The petitioner, in the claim petition had stated that he had spent Rs. 25,000/ on special diet. Although the petitioner has not proved that he was advised special diet looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner notice can be taken of the fact that the petitioner might have taken diet rich in protein, vitamins and minerals for speedier recovery. In the circumstances the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs.Five Thousand only) for special diet.
25. The petitioner, in the claim petition had stated that he had to hire an attendant to look after him for about 3 months and he had to pay a salary of Rs.6,000/ to him. Although the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that he incurred any expenses towards attendant charges, however looking to the nature of injuries the petitioner would have incurred some expenditure on attendant charges and a sum of Rs.8000/ is awarded towards attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
26. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of the accident he was a student of SGT Institute of Engineering & Technology, Gurgaon and was doing B. Tech and had deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/ as fees on 23.08.2012 but due to the said accident, the petitioner could not attend his examinations and had suffered a huge loss of his studies as the whole year was spoilt due to not Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 22 of 27 giving of exams. It was averred that the petitioner is a very hard working and brilliant student but due to the said accident he could not appear in his examinations and one year of the petitioner's study was totally ruined due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was averred that the petitioner had suffered a huge financial loss of Rs.60,000/ as fees submitted by the petitioner on 23.08.2013. It was averred that due to the accident, not only the petitioner but also his family members had suffered great mental pain, injury and financial loss besides the loss of his whole career as the petitioner was just 22 years old and a bright future was in front of the petitioner but due to the spoiling of one year it had become very difficult for him to continue his course/studies as before. The receipt showing deposit of Rs.60,000/ has been placed on record but there is nothing to show that the petitioner had actually lost one year's study on that count or that he could not get reimbursement of the amount deposited. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 PW1 stated that he is in 3rd year of Engineering. He had not filed any proof of the same on record. He denied the suggestion that he was not doing Engineering so he had not filed any proof of the same or that he had filed the petition falsely against the respondents No.1 and 2. Thus there is no evidence to show what was the actual loss suffered by the petitioner and in the absence of any other evidence it cannot be presumed that the whole amount of Rs.60,000/ got wasted. During examination by the Tribunal the petitioner had stated that he is 20 years old at present and at present he is in 3rd year of B. Tech. He stated that Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 23 of 27 he had lost one Semester due to the accident though there is nothing on record to show the same. The petitioner has not produced any witness or document to show what was the loss suffered by him. However, notice can be taken of the fact that petitioner may have missed out on his studies for some period. Hence, the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs.25,000/ consolidated on account of loss of studies.
27. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner had suffered any disability on account of the injuries. The petitioner has not proved that he acquired any disability on account of the accident or he is likely to suffer future loss of income on account of the injuries sustained in the accident and that the injuries would reduce his efficiency to work. Accordingly the petitioner cannot be held entitled to any amount on account of loss of future prospects. The total compensation is assessed as under:
Medicines and Medical treatment Including future treatment Rs.1,90,000/ Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/ Loss of Amenities of life Rs.10,000/ Disfiguration Rs.5,000/ Conveyance Rs.5,000/ Special Diet Rs.5,000/ Attendant charges Rs.8,000/ Loss of Studies Rs.25,000/ TOTAL Rs.2,78,000/ Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 24 of 27 Thus the total compensation would be Rs.2,78,000/.
RELIEF
28. The petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.2,78,000/ (Rs.Two Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization including, interim award, if any already passed against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. The entire amount be released to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the said amount by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft in the court within 30 days of the award failing which it would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. for the period of delay. The petitioner shall file his complete address as well as address of his counsel for sending the notice of deposit of the award amount.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
29. The respondent No.1 is the driver, the respondent No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Thus the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are held jointly and severally liable. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited being the insurance company in its reply had admitted that the vehicle bearing registration No.HR14AJ8572 Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 25 of 27 was insured in the name of the respondent No.2 vide policy No. 3001/MI00984125/00/000, which was effective from 24th December, 2012 to 23rd December, 2013. There is no evidence on behalf of respondent No.3 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondents. Hence, the respondent No.3 being the insurance company in respect of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2. The respondent No.3 being the insurer is directed to deposit the award amount in the court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft within 30 days of the passing of the award with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
30. Nazir to report in case the cheque is not deposited within 30 days of the passing of the award/judgment. Nazir is directed to note the particulars of the award amount in the register today itself. The respondent No.3 shall deposit the award amount along with interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant with a copy to his counsel and the compliance report shall be filed in the court along with proof of deposit of award amount, the notice of deposit and the calculation of interest on 25.11.2014.
An attested copy of the award be given to the parties (free of cost). Suit No.272/14 Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 26 of 27 File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
on this 22nd day of August, 2014 (GEETANJLI GOEL)
PO: MACT2
New Delhi
Suit No.272/14
Deepank Tanwar v Navdeep Page No. 27 of 27