Delhi District Court
Shri Rao Surya Pratap Singh vs Shri Girish Chander on 16 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJLI GOEL, PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL2, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No.D77/14
Date of Institution: 21.12.2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Rao Surya Pratap Singh
S/o Shri Kamlesh Singh
R/o Village Chowki Manera
PS Meh Nagar
District Azamgarh
Uttar Pradesh. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Girish Chander
S/o Shri Nathu Ram
R/o RZH713, Near Solanki Chowk 2
Raj NagarII, Palam
Delhi. (Driver)
2. Shri Amit Yadav
S/o Shri Ram Kumar
R/o Flat No.6D, Pink Apartment
Nasirpur, Dwarka
New Delhi. (Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
60 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase III
New Delhi
Suit No.D77/14
Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 1 of 22
Also at:
570, Naigaum Cross Road
next to Royal Industrial Estate
Wadala (W), Mumbai - 400 031. (Insurer) ...Respondents
Final Arguments heard : 16.09.2014 Award reserved for : 16.10.2014 Date of Award : 16.10.2014 AWARD
1. Vide this judgmentcumaward, I proceed to decide the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) which is treated as a 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 he had been working as a driver since February 2013 with Rajesh Singh son of Shri Feku Singh, resident of Village Devla, PO Surajpur, Greater Noida, authorized by ABP Travels Pvt. Ltd. 1320, Sector 3132A, near Barmalt Factory, Gurgaon - 122001, which provides vehicle services to UHG Company, Noida and was drawing a salary of Rs.14,000/ per month. It is stated that on 11.07.2013 at about 11 p.m, he along with Shri Sunil Kumar Pal went to Najafgarh in order to leave an employee of UHG company in Cab Innova colour white bearing No.UP16BT4036 and thereafter were returning back to the company and Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 2 of 22 when they reached Dwarka Flyover and were getting down towards Delhi Cantt then suddenly a car bearing No.DL 3CS 7123 Honda City came from the front and climbed over the divider and rammed with their vehicle in very high speed. It is averred that thereafter, police came and rushed both the injured to JPN Trauma Center, AIIMS, New Delhi. It is stated that FIR No. 219/13 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt in respect of the accident. It is averred that due to the accident the petitioner had been suffering from acute mental Neuro and severe pain in body and was also having a problem of memory loss and he was still under treatment and he remained unconscious at Trauma Center, AIIMS. He was discharged on 3.8.2013 and he was still under treatment. It is stated that the petitioner sustained grievous injury and spent Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees Three Lac) approximately on treatment so far. It is averred that the petitioner is a graduate having probability of growing his income and also having dependency of his family members (parents, brother and sisters) as he is the eldest son of his family. It is averred that still the petitioner is under expensive medical treatment and facing financial difficulties.
3. Reasoned decision/ reply was filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 averring that the vehicle bearing registration No.DL 3CS 7123 was insured with the respondent No.3 at the relevant time i.e. on 11.07.2013 vide Policy No. 1316422347008166 for the period from 29.12.2012 to 28.12.2013 in the name of Shri Chetan Rishi. It is averred that as per the MLC of Jai Prakash Narayan Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 3 of 22 Apex Trauma Center, Delhi, the injuries sustained by Shri Rao Surya Pratap were grievous in nature. An offer of Rs.40,000/ in addition to the medical bills was given. However it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ injured that the same was not acceptable.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 09.04.2014 :
1. Whether the deceased sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 11.07.2013 at about 11 p.m at Road after Dwarka Flyover towards IOC Red Light after Prahaladpur Bus Stand, caused by vehicle no.DL 3CS 7123 driven by respondent no.1 and owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
An application under Section 170 MV Act was filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 which was allowed vide order dated 5.8.2014.
5. The petitioner entered into the witness box as PW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A. The medical bills of Aastha Pharma are Ex.PW1/1 (colly), copy of medical treatment record is Mark B and the High School Certificate is Ex.PW1/2 (colly). During further reexamination Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 4 of 22 he exhibited the High School Examination Certificate as Ex.PW1/3, High School and Intermediate Examination Marksheet as Ex.PW1/4, Intermediate Examination Marksheet as Ex.PW1/5, Marksheet of B.A. 3rd Year as Ex.PW1/6, copy of his DL as Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8. PE was closed on 5.8.2014. Thereafter PW1 was recalled for examination and examined on 26.8.2014. It was stated by the learned counsel for the insurance company that no RE was to be led. RE was closed on 26.8.2014.
6. 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 26.8.2014 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.
7. My findings on the specific issues are as under:
Issue No. 1
8. As the case is U/s 166 M.V Act it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that he sustained injuries in an accident caused due to the 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 Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 5 of 22 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 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 Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 6 of 22 in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or 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.
9. The case of the petitioner is that on 11.07.2013 at about 11 p.m, he along with Shri Sunil Kumar Pal went to Najafgarh in order to leave an employee of UHG company in Cab Innova colour white bearing No.UP16BT4036 and thereafter were returning back to the company and when they reached Dwarka Flyover and were getting down towards Delhi Cantt then suddenly a car bearing No.DL 3CS 7123 Honda City came from the front and climbed over the divider and rammed with their vehicle in very high speed. It was averred that thereafter, police came and rushed both the injured to JPN Trauma Center, AIIMS, New Delhi. It was stated that FIR No.219/13 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt in respect of the accident. In paras 2 and 3 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A the petitioner had deposed to that effect.
10. The IO had filed Detailed Accident Report, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, containing the criminal record consisting of copy of charge sheet; copy of FIR; copy of site plan; copy of MLC, copy of seizure memos; copy of mechanical inspection report of the Innova car No.UP16BT4036 and of the offending vehicle No.DL3CS7123, copy of RC Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 7 of 22 of the offending vehicle with its verification report, copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle and its verification report, copy of the Driving License of the respondent No.1 with its verification report and medical bills of the petitioner. As per the FIR No.219/13 under sections 279/337 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt the case was registered on the basis of the complaint of Sunil Kumar Pal who was stated to be accompanying the petitioner wherein he had stated about the manner of the accident. As per the charge sheet the respondent No. 1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under sections 279/337/338 IPC.
11. The respondents No.1 and 2 had not filed the written statement nor appeared to crossexamine PW1. PW1 was extensively crossexamined on the manner of the accident and during crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 PW1 stated that he was going from Sector 3132 Gurgaon to Dwarka. At the time of accident, there were two persons in the vehicle. He stated that there was a divider on the road. He stated that he was on the left side of the road. The offending vehicle was coming from the other side and hit the divider and thereafter came and fell on his vehicle. He denied the suggestion that his vehicle was going at a high speed due to which he could not control his vehicle and the accident had taken place due to his negligence. He stated that the number of the offending vehicle was told to him by the Security Guard who was there with him. He stated that he had fallen unconscious after the accident. He stated that the police had inquired from him about the accident.
Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 8 of 22
12. PW1 thus stated that he was going from Sector 3132 Gurgaon to Dwarka. He reiterated that at the time of the accident, there were two persons in the vehicle. He stated that there was a divider on the road and he was on the left side of the road. A perusal of the site plan also shows that there was divider on the road. Further PW1 stated that the offending vehicle was coming from the other side and hit the divider and thereafter came and fell on his vehicle. A suggestion was put to PW1 that his vehicle was going at a high speed due to which he could not control his vehicle and the accident had taken place due to his negligence which he denied. However the question of the petitioner being not able to control his vehicle does not arise as he could not have anticipated that a vehicle would come from the opposite side after crossing the divider and fall on his vehicle. PW1 had stated that the number of the offending vehicle was told to him by the Security Guard who was there with him but nothing much turns on the same and it is seen that even the FIR was lodged on the complaint of Sunil Kumar Pal. PW1 also stated that the police had inquired from him about the accident. Thus nothing material has come out in the crossexamination of PW1 to doubt the manner in which the accident had taken place. The respondent No.1 who is the driver and the respondent No.2 who is the 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 respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 279/338 IPC. In Basant Kaur and Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 9 of 22 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 the accident. There is absolutely no evidence from the respondents to disprove the particulars of the accident or the involvement of vehicle No.DL3CS7123. The fact that charge sheet has been filed against the respondent No.1 and he is facing trial is not disputed. In view of the testimony of PW1 and the documents on record which have remained unrebutted, the negligence of respondent No.1 has been prima facie proved.
13. It was stated that after the accident the police came and rushed both the injured to JPN Trauma Center, AIIMS, New Delhi. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner to be grievous. 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
14. 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 cases under the following heads: (1) for loss of earnings during the period Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 10 of 22 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
15. The case of petitioner is that after the accident on 11.07.2013 the police came and rushed both the injured to JPN Trauma Center, AIIMS, New Delhi. It was averred that due to the accident the petitioner had been suffering from acute mental Neuro and severe pain in body and was also having a problem of memory loss and he was still under treatment and he remained unconscious at Trauma Center, AIIMS. He was discharged on 3.8.2013 and he was still under treatment. It was stated that the petitioner sustained grievous injury and spent Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees Three Lac) approximately on treatment so far. It was averred that still the petitioner was under expensive medical treatment and facing financial difficulties. PW1 in paras 3 and 4 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. The medical bills of Aastha Pharma are Ex.PW1/1 (colly) and copy of medical treatment record is Mark B. Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 11 of 22
16. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner to be grievous. The documents placed on record show that the petitioner had sustained Grade 4 liver laceration with Grade 2 Splenic laceration with 8th rib fracture with posterior temporal small contusion. They also show that the petitioner was admitted in hospital on 11.7.2013 and was discharged on 3.8.2013. Thus the injuries were grievous in nature. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 PW1 admitted that he had not placed on record the bills showing expenses of Rs.3 Lacs volunteered some bills had been placed on record. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs.3 Lacs on treatment. Thus PW1 admitted that he had not placed on record the bills showing expenses of Rs.3 Lacs volunteered some bills had been placed on record. There is also nothing to show that the treatment was still continuing. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner had sustained injuries and underwent treatment for the same. The petitioner had stated that he had spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ on his treatment but he has filed bills only for an amount of Rs.9,700/. Looking to the nature of the injuries the petitioner is held entitled to the amount of the bills. Further the petitioner would have incurred some amount on medical treatment even subsequently. Accordingly an amount of Rs.11,000/ is awarded towards medical treatment and expenses including the amount of the bills.
Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 12 of 22 PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
17. 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 after the accident on 11.07.2013 the police came and rushed both the injured to JPN Trauma Center, AIIMS, New Delhi. It was averred that due to the accident the petitioner had been suffering from acute mental Neuro and severe pain in body and was also having a problem of memory loss and he was still under treatment and he remained unconscious at Trauma Center, AIIMS. He was discharged on 3.8.2013 and he was still under treatment. It was stated that the petitioner sustained grievous injury and still the petitioner was under expensive medical treatment and facing financial difficulties. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner to be grievous. The documents placed on record show that the petitioner had sustained Grade 4 liver laceration with Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 13 of 22 Grade 2 Splenic laceration with 8th rib fracture with posterior temporal small contusion. They also show that the petitioner was admitted in hospital on 11.7.2013 and was discharged on 3.8.2013. Thus the injuries were grievous 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.25,000/ (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only) for pain and suffering.
18. The petitioner was around 24 years of age at the time of the accident and the educational certificates of the petitioner show his date of birth to be 25.6.1990. Thus he would have been more than 23 years old on the date of the accident i.e. 11.7.2013. Notice can be taken of the fact that on account of the 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.15,000/ (Rs.Fifteen Thousand Only) for loss of amenities of life. The petitioner cannot however be held to be entitled to any amount towards disfiguration or loss of expectation of life.
Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 14 of 22 CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
19. 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 AIIMS Trauma Centre 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.
20. Although the petitioner has not proved that he was advised special diet but 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.3,000/ (Rs.Three Thousand only) for special diet.
21. 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.6000/ is awarded towards attendant charges.
Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 15 of 22 LOSS OF INCOME
22. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been working as a driver since February 2013 with Rajesh Singh son of Shri Feku Singh, resident of Village Devla, PO Surajpur, Greater Noida, authorized by ABP Travels Pvt. Ltd. 1320, Sector 3132A, near Barmalt Factory, Gurgaon - 122001, which provides vehicle services to UHG Company, Noida and was drawing a salary of Rs. 14,000/ per month. It was averred that the petitioner is a graduate having probability of growing his income and also having dependency of his family members (parents, brother and sisters) as he is the eldest son of his family. It was averred that still the petitioner was under expensive medical treatment and facing financial difficulties. The High School Certificate is Ex.PW1/2 (colly), the High School Examination Certificate is Ex.PW1/3, High School and Intermediate Examination Marksheet is Ex.PW1/4, Intermediate Examination Marksheet is Ex.PW1/5, Marksheet of B.A. 3rd Year is Ex.PW1/6, copy of his DL is Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8. However the petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that he was indeed working with Rajesh Singh or earning Rs.14,000/ p.m.
23. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 PW1 stated that he is B.A. (Pass). The copy of his B.A. (Pass) certificate is Mark A. He denied the suggestion that he was not in possession of any original document to show that he had done B.A. (Pass). He stated that he Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 16 of 22 was working for ABP Travels and he was earning Rs.14,000/ per month. He stated that he received cash payment. He stated that he had not placed on record any document to show that he was working with ABP Travels volunteered the ID card issued to him was lost during the accident. He denied the suggestion that he did not have any proof to show that he was working with ABP Travels or that he was not earning Rs.14,000/ per month. He denied the suggestion that the documents produced by him were false and fabricated and had been procured subsequent to the accident to support his claim. Thus PW1 reiterated that he was working for ABP Travels and he was earning Rs. 14,000/ per month. He stated that he received cash payment. He stated that he had not placed on record any document to show that he was working with ABP Travels volunteered the ID card issued to him was lost during the accident. As such the petitioner himself had admitted that he had not placed on record any document to show that he was working with ABP Travels. He had volunteered that the ID card issued to him was lost during the accident though a copy of the same has been placed on record but even no witness has been produced from the said company to prove that the petitioner was indeed working with the said company or earning Rs.14,000/.
24. The petitioner had stated that he is a graduate and he has placed on record documents which also show the same. Further the copy of the DL of the petitioner has been placed on record. During examination by the Tribunal the petitioner stated that he is 24 years old at present. He stated that at the Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 17 of 22 time of accident, he was working as a driver and was earning Rs.14,000/ per month. However there is nothing to show the same. In the absence of any documentary proof to show the income of the petitioner his income would be computed on the basis of minimum wages for a graduate prevalent on the date of the accident i.e. 11.7.2013 which were Rs.10,218/ p.m.
25. The petitioner had not stated for how much period he could not work on account of the injuries sustained in the accident though the documents show that he was admitted in hospital from 11.7.2013 to 3.8.2013. During examination by the Tribunal he stated that at present he is not doing anything. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner was not doing anything at present on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that he remained on bed rest for any particular period. Thus no document has been produced to show for how much period the petitioner could not work and there is nothing to show that he was advised bed rest for any particular period or even to show that the treatment was continuous during the said period or that on account of the same he was unable to work. Notice can however be taken of the fact that the petitioner may not have been able to perform his avocation for some period. Hence, the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs.31,000/ consolidated on account of loss of income including for the period he may not have been able to work.
Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 18 of 22
26. 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 and thereby he would suffer loss of future income and during examination by the Tribunal the petitioner stated that he did not get any disability in the accident. 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.11,000/ Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/ Loss of Amenities of life Rs.15,000/ Conveyance Rs.5,000/ Special Diet Rs.3,000/ Attendant charges Rs.6,000/ Loss of Income Rs.31,000/ TOTAL Rs.96,000/ Thus the total compensation would be Rs.96,000/.
Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 19 of 22 RELIEF
27. The petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.96,000/ (Rs.Ninety Six Thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR 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 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:
28. The respondent No.1 is the driver, 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. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited being the insurance company in its reply had admitted that the vehicle bearing registration No.DL 3CS 7123 was insured with the respondent No.3 at the relevant time i.e. on 11.07.2013 vide Policy No.1316422347008166 for the period from 29.12.2012 to 28.12.2013 in the name of Shri Chetan Rishi. There is no evidence on behalf of Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 20 of 22 respondent No.3 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondents No.1 and 2 and in fact the duly verified documents regarding the offending vehicle were placed on record by the IO with the DAR. 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.
29. 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 16.1.2015.
Attested copy of the award be given to the parties free of cost. Suit No.D77/14 Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 21 of 22 File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
th
on this 16 day of October, 2014 (GEETANJLI GOEL)
PO: MACT2
NEW DELHI
Suit No.D77/14
Rao Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Girish Chander & Ors. Page no. 22 of 22