Delhi District Court
Puran vs Anil Kumar on 2 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR : JUDGE (MACT)-01 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI CNR No. DLCT01-007146-2023 MACT No. 504/2023 FIR No. 129/2023 PS: Pahar Ganj U/s-279/337/338 IPC & u/s 66(1)/192A M.V. Act Puran (Injured) S/o Sh. Prabhati, R/o B 5/6, J.J. Bandu Camp, Vasant Kunj, South West Delhi, Delhi-110070. ......Petitioner Versus 1. Anil Kumar (Driver of offending vehicle) S/o Sh. Ram Lakhan Prasad R/o Village-Dharampur, PO-Hulasganj, PS Hulasganj, District-Jehanabad, Bihar. 2. Harbir Singh (Owner of offending vehicle) S/o Sh. Uday Singh R/o H.No. M-15, Shakurpur, New Delhi-110001. (Proceeded as ex-parte vide order dated 30.11.2023) 3. Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer) Office at: IFCI Tower, 5th Floor, 96, Nehru Place Market, Delhi. ......Respondents Date of filing of DAR: 01.06.2023 Judgment Reserved on: 30.11.2023 Date of Award: 02.12.2023 MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 1 of 46 A W A R D: 1. In the present case, Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed by the investigation agency on 01.06.2023 in terms of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act regarding a Road Traffic Accident which took place on 25.02.2023, at about 10:00 P.M., in front of NDRS Entry Gate No. 01, Delhi, wherein injured Puran had sustained grievous injuries due to accident caused by vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1RL- 9313, being driven by respondent no. 1 Anil Kumar, owned by respondent no. 2 Harbir Singh and insured with respondent no.3 Go Digit General Insurance company Ltd. BRIEF FACTS 2. The Facts in brief as emerged from the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) are that on 25.02.2023, injured Puran had to go to Agra along with his family and as such he along with his family reached at New Delhi Railway Station by one auto. At about 10.00 p.m., the said auto left them on the road opposite Entry Gate no. 01 of New Delhi Railway Station. While the petitioner was crossing the road along with his daughter Barkha for going inside the New Delhi Railway Station, in the meantime he saw one DTC bus route no. 166 coming which was going to Connaught place and as such Puran along with his daughter Barkha stopped in the middle of the road on the divider, waiting for the bus to pass from there. Meanwhile one Auto which was being driven at a high speed, came from the wrong side of Gate no. 1 of Railway Station to cross the road and while crossing the road, the backside iron bumper of the said auto had stuck against the backside of the said bus due to narrow space, as a result of the same, the iron bumper of the said auto had broken after MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 2 of 46 strucking with the DTC bus and it hit the leg of the injured Puran, due to which he sustained injury. Thereafter PCR came at the spot and got him admitted at Lady Harding Hospital. GD No. 0083A dated 25.02.2023 was recorded at 23:06:44 hours at PS Pahar Ganj regarding admission of patient Pooran S/o Prabhati Lal in LHMC Hospital after accident with a bus at CF Road. The DD was assigned to SI Vikram Paul telephonically, who along with Ct. Bhagirath left for the spot. Accordingly SI Vikram Paul along with Ct Bhagirath reached at the spot i.e. CF Road, in front of New Delhi Railway Station Entry Gate No. 1, where they came to know that injured had been taken to Lady Harding Hospital by PCR van. Thereafter SI Vikram Paul left the DTC Bus of Route No. DL-1PC-7861, which was found stationed at the spot, in the custody of Ct. Bhagirath and himself went to the emergency of Lady Harding Hospital, where he collected the MLC no. 319/2023 of Pooran S/o Prabhati Lal, aged 45 years, R/o B-56, Basant Kunj, Delhi, wherein alleged history of "Trauma to left leg foot by DTC Bus running over the foot near Railway Station Entry Gate towards Connaught Place on 25/02/2023 at 10.00 PM and nature of injuries "Reserved" & age of injuries as "Fresh" was found mentioned. Thereafter, the doctor concerned declared the injured "fit for statement' but the injured could not give his statement as he was in acute pain in his leg. After that, IO came at the spot and took DTC Bus No. DL- 1PC-7861 into police possession. He also checked the CCTV camera installed at the place of occurrence, wherein one auto was seen crossing the road from wrong side. Thereafter IO reached at Lady Harding Hospital, where injured Puran was found fit for statement and as such IO recorded his statement. On the basis of MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 3 of 46 statement of injured Puran, MLC and circumstances, offences u/s 279/337 IPC were found to be committed. IO prepared a tehrir and got the FIR No. 129/2023, u/s 279/337 IPC registered at PS Pahar Ganj. Thereafter IO along with Ct. Bhagirath reached at the spot i.e. CF Road in front of NDRS Entry Gate no. 1, where neither any stains of blood nor marks of tyre were found present. Search for eye-witness was made but due to night time no eye-witness was found at the spot. At the spot, CCTV camera was found installed and on checking the CCTV footage, it was revealed that one Auto rickshaw firstly enters into railway station and then tries to cross the road from wrong side as a result of which the injured sustains injury while crossing the road. The said CCTV footage was preserved. Thereafter IO prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence and came back to PS. Then IO joined eye witness Barkha D/o Puran, R/o B-5/6, JJ Bandu Camp, Basant Kunj, new Delhi and DTC bus driver Manoj S/o Sh. Jagdish, R/o H.No. 96, Om Prakash Aur Naiyan Wali Gali, Mohammadpur, Alipur, North West Delhi, in the investigation and recorded their statements u/s 161 CrPC. After that IO issued notice u/s 91 CrPC to driver of DTC bus and asked him to provide his driving license and relevant documents. Notice u/s 133 M.V. Act was given to Manager, DTC Bus Depot, Subhash Palace, New Delhi, who in reply to said notice, had informed that at the time of accident, Driver Manoj S/o Sh. Jagdish was driving the DTC bus and produced the relevant documents of said bus before IO along with driving licence of the driver, which were seized by the IO. Thereafter, IO along with Ct. Bhagirath went in search of the Auto which caused the accident in question, at New Delhi Railway Station, where he searched for Auto bearing No. MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 4 of 46 DL-1RL-9313, which was visible in the CCTV footage, but nothing could be ascertained. Then search for said Auto was also made at Nabi Karim and Pahar Ganj, but no clue was found. Thereafter, IO along with Ct. Bhagirath came back to the PS and recorded statement of said Constable u/s 161 CrPC. During investigation on 27.02.2023, IO had collected the CCTV footage of accident in a pen drive from HC Lalit Kumar, MHC(GP, PS Paharganj) and particulars of wanted Auto bearing registration No. DL-1RL-9313 were checked online and the said auto was found registered in the name of Harbir Singh S/o Uday Singh, R/o M-15, Shakurpur, Delhi. Accordingly IO reached at the said address but it was revealed that no such person was residing there. The IO also made inquiries qua the Auto but no clue was found. On 01.03.2023, IO along with Ct. Bhagirath again reached at New Delhi Railway Station in search of offending Auto and after some time, Auto bearing registration no. DL-1RL- 9313 was seen coming, which was stopped and inquiries were made from the driver of said Auto. On inquiry, the name of said driver was revealed as Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Lakhan, R/o Vill. Dharampur, P.O. Hulasganj, PS Hulasganj, Jehanabad, Bihar. The said driver was also inquired about the accident in question, who stated that on 25.02.2023, at about 10.00 p.m., when he was trying to take the auto from wrong side, due to narrow space as at one side there was divider and on the other side there was one DTC bus, his auto got stuck in the backside of the DTC bus, as a result of which, the bumper of his auto got broken and it hit against the leg of a person, who had sustained injury and that he got scared and ran away from the spot along with his auto. The disclosure statement of driver of said auto was MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 5 of 46 recorded. He was arrested and was released on bail. Thereafter IO issued notice u/s 91 CrPC to Auto driver Anil (respondent no. 1 herein) and asked him to produce the relevant documents of said auto, on which, the said auto driver produced photocopy of his driving licence No. BR0220220011542, photocopy of insurance of vehicle No. DL-1RL-9313, and policy no. DO74368557/27082022 to IO, which were taken into police possession. Then IO got both the vehicles i.e. DTC Bus DL- 1PC-7861 and Auto bearing registration No. DL-1RL-9313 mechanically inspected. On 27.03.2023, the IO sent the MLC No. 319/2023 dated 25.02.2023 of injured Pooran S/o Prabhatilal to LHMC Hospital, Delhi, for the purpose of obtaining the final opinion qua the nature of injury. During investigation, notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act was issued to owner of Auto namely Harbir Singh (respondent no. 2 herein), who stated that he had sold the said Auto bearing registration No. DL-1RL-9313 to one person named Santosh 12 years ago, but the said Auto & its documents are still in his name. Thereafter, IO joined Santosh Kumar S/o Sh. Bal Govind, R/o H.No. L-368, Laxmanpuri, Nabi Karim, Delhi, in the investigation, who stated that he had purchased the Auto bearing registration No. DL-1RL-9313 12 years ago from Harbir Singh, but the said Auto is still in the name of Harbir, who did not get transferred it in his name despite repeated requests. During investigation, IO also joined one Jobanveer Sawhney S/o Sh. Inder Pal Sawhney, R/o Shop No. 7071, Chitra Gupta Road, Pahar Ganj, Delhi, in the investigation, who stated that Auto bearing registration No. DL-1RL-9313 was got financed by their company Abhiwadan Capital in the name of Harbir Singh (respondent no. 2 herein) and later on Harbir Singh sold the said MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 6 of 46 Auto to someone and obtained NOC from the said company and nothing was due qua the auto. Thereafter IO joined in the investigation one Vilok Chadha S/o late Sh. Pran Nath Chadha, R/o Shop NO. 2198-B/63, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, who stated that Auto bearing registration No. DL-1RL-9313 was sold by Harbir to Santosh in the year 2011, which was got financed through Universal Auto by Santosh and that Santosh had made the entire payment. On 01.05.2023, opinion qua nature of injury on the MLC No. 319/2023 of injured Pooran was obtained, which was opined to be grievous in nature. As such, Section 338 IPC was added. The documents of both the vehicles involved in the accident were got verified, wherein Auto bearing registration No. DL-1RL-9313 was found without permit and therefore Section 66(1)/192A M.V. Act was invoked against Harbir Singh, owner of said auto, qua which GD No. 0106A was recorded. As per said GD, kalandara proceedings u/s 66(1)/192A M.V. Act were initiated against respondent no. 2 Harbir Singh. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned Ld. Magisterial Court for the offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC, whereas Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed before this Tribunal on 01.06.2023. 2.1. On 04.07.2023, reply/WS was filed on behalf of respondent no. 3-insurance company, wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle i.e. TSR bearing registration no. DL- 1RL-9313 was duly insured with the said respondent in favour of respondent no. 2 Harbir Singh vide Policy no. D074368557 for the period from 29.08.2023 to 28.08.2023, on certain terms and conditions. It is further claimed that respondent no. 1 (driver of MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 7 of 46 the offending vehicle) was holding a driving licence only for the LMV (NT) and LMV-3 Wheeler (NT) category, which does not cover the category of the offending vehicle i.e. TSR category as on the date of accident i.e. 25.02.2023. It is further claimed that there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of the motor vehicle Act/Rules on the part of driver and insured of the offending vehicle, hence, the respondent no. 3 insurance company is unable to give any legal offer for settlement of the claim and deny its liability and pray for the decision of the case on merit giving due opportunities to the said respondent to lead its evidence. 2.2. Common reply on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 was filed on 24.07.2023, wherein it was claimed that the TSR was falsely implicated in the present case and a false and frivolous case is registered against the driver of the vehicle by the police officials as per information received from the driver of the bus to extort money & no such accident took place with the said TSR. It is further claimed that the said TSR was duly insured with respondent no.3 Go Digit Insurance Co. Ltd. vide police bearing No. D074368557, valid with effect from 29.08.2023 to 28.08.2023. It is further claimed that the respondent no. 1 Annil Kumar was having a valid driving licence bearing no. BR02 20220011542 and as such, if any liability is fastened upon the answering respondents, in that eventuality it will be the respondent no. 3 insurance company which will be solely and absolutely liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner/claimant. MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 8 of 46 ISSUES FRAMED 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 24.07.2023, this Tribunal had framed the following issues: Issue No.1:Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 25.02.2023 at about 10:00 pm at CF Road in front of NDRS Entry Gate No. 01, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1RL- 9313 driven rashly & negligently by respondent no. 1 Anil Kumar, owned by respondent no. 2 Harbir Singh and insured with respondent no. 3 Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd.?OPP Issue No.2: Whether the driver of offending TSR was not carrying a valid driving licence for driving the said TSR category vehicle and thus, there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act/Rules, on the part of driver of offending TSR? If so, its effect? OPR-3 Issue No. 3: Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP Issue No.4: Relief. EVIDENCE 4. Since the respondent no.3-insurance company had disputed its liability, therefore, the matter was sent to Ld. Local Commissioner for recording the evidence of the petitioner and the respondents, who after completion of recording of evidence, sent the recorded evidences of the parties along with the proceedings to this Tribunal on 28.11.2023. MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 9 of 46 4.1. In order to prove his case, petitioner/injured Puran had examined himself as PW1 before Ld. Local Commissioner. 4.2. Respondent no. 1 Anil had examined himself as RW1 before Ld. Local Commissioner in support of his defence. 4.3. Respondent no. 3-insurance company had examined R3W1 Paramvir Singh in its defence. 4.4. Written submissions were filed on behalf of respondent no. 3-insurance company on 28.11.2023. None of the party had filed Form XIV, hence opportunity to file the same was closed. Since neither respondent no. 2 nor any one had appeared on behalf of the said respondent, therefore he was proceeded as ex-parte vide order dated 28.11.2023. 4.5. On 30.11.2023, financial statement of the petitioner was recorded, final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioner and respondent no. 1. FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS 5. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the petitioner & respondent no. 1, have gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 insurance company and perused the record. 5.1. My findings on the various issues are as under:- 5.2. Issue No.1:Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 25.02.2023 at about 10:00 pm at CF Road in front of NDRS Entry Gate MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 10 of 46 No. 01, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL- 1RL-9313 driven rashly & negligently by respondent no. 1 Anil Kumar, owned by respondent no. 2 Harbir Singh and insured with respondent no. 3 Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP 5.3. The onus to prove the issue no. 1 was upon the petitioner. 5.4. PW1 Puran, in his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A has stated in relevant parts of para nos. 2 to 12 as follows:- "2. I state that I work as Peon on contract basis in ISRO situated at Lok Nayak Bhawan, where I earn Rs. 18,000/- per month. 3. I state that the accident had taken place on 25.02.2023 is in the jurisdiction of P.S.- Paharganj. It is pertinent to mention here that I was going to visit Agra alongwith my family on the relevant date. Around 10:00 PM, an auto driver dropped me at Gate No.1 of New Delhi Railway Station. I was crossing road alongwith my family, when I saw that a DTC bus was coming from New Delhi Railway Sation to Connaught Place then we stopped at divider, suddenly an auto came from wrong side from Gate No. 1, New Delhi Railway Station and negligently drove his auto to cross road and iron made bumper of backside of auto stuck into DTC bus and got broken and its broken piece hit my leg badly. Thereafter, I got badly injured. 4. That PCR police official came at the spot took me to Lady Harding Hospital, where I got admitted on 25.02.2023 and my MLC was prepared..................................................... 5. I state that an FIR was registered at P.S.- MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 11 of 46 Paharganj, FIR No. 129/2023 U/s 279/338 of IPC. 6. I state the doctor treated me and operated my leg and plate was planted inside my leg. The doctor discharged me on dated 02.03.2023. That my leg again started pain then again I got admitted on dated 12.07.2023 and got discharged on 16.07.2023, where my operation again took place. That I have still pain in my leg due to which I had regular visit at the hospital, I lastly visited hospital on 05.08.2023. .................................................................
7. I stated that I had to spend Rs. 27,000/- on my treatment, apart from the above I had to buy walker and other accessories for my assistance for which I could not get any bills.
.................................................................
8. I state that the investigation officer after thorough investigation, filed a chargesheet against the respondent under section 279/337 IPC...........................................................
9. I stated that the Respondent has caused the accident using the offending vehicle i.e. Auto bearing no. DL 1RL 9313, by driving it rashly, negligently, carelessly, recklessly and without following the Traffic rules.
10. I state that during the course of the accident, the Respondent No. 1 was driver the offending vehicle and the said vehicle owned by Respondent No.2 hence, the Respondent No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation for the loss caused by his offending act.
11. I state that due to the accident, the Petitioner has various injury, which caused him great mental and physical pain & agony.
MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 12 of 46
12. I state that the Petitioner claims Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Only) from the Respondents.
5.5. PW1 Puran has tendered following documents in his evidence:-
i) The certified copy of Aadhar Card Ex. PW1/1.
ii) Certified copy of MLC Ex. PW1/2.
iii) Copy of discharge slip and OPD receipts Ex. PW1/3 (colly).
iv) Bills Ex. PW1/4 (colly)
v) DAR Ex. PW1/5.
5.6. The respondent no. 1/RW1 has stated in relevant parts of paras no. 3 to 10 of his affidavit of evidence Ex. RW1/1 as under:-
3. That the involvement of the insured vehicle bearing no. DL 1RL 9313 in any accident resulting into injuries to Sh.
Puran is, therefore, Vehemently denied. From the facts of the case, it seems that the petitioner had sustained injury due to some other reason and just to make money a false story involving vehicle bearing no. DL 1RL 9313 has been concocted.
4. That the deponent says that the Vehicle TSR bearing no. DL 1RL 9313 never involved in any offence.
5. That the deponent says that no accident as alleged ever took place on the given date and time with the vehicle. Three Wheeler bearing the registration No DL 1RL 9313 while allegedly driven by the answering Respondent.
6. That the deponent says that the deponent was not driving the vehicle/TSR at very high speed, in rash and negligent manner, carelessly, in zig- zag manner, in violation of traffic rules and norms.
7. That the deponent says that Petitioner MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 13 of 46 has made a false and frivolous case against the respondent No. 1 & 2 without any mistake on their part. The Petitioner wants to take the undue advantage of her own wrong from this Hon'ble Court.
8. That the deponent says that there is no any negligence nor any default on the part of the Respondent No.1 as the deponent has not done any wrongful act and the deponent also says that the Petitioner has not suffered due to the acts of the deponent.
9. That the deponent says that there was no such accident causing to grievous injury leading to regular treatment. The submissions of the petitioner is not only wrong and false but also a concocted story with sole intention to take undue advantage in terms of money under pressure.
10. That the deponent says that the present Petition is false, frivolous and filed before this Hon'ble Court for the purpose of falsely implicating the Deponent.
5.7. It is well settled that the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal are in the nature of inquiry. In Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors [(2009) 13 SC 530, [in Kaushnumma Begum and others V/s New India Assurance Company Limited, [2001 ACJ 421 SC [in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. cited as [2009 ACJ 287], it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 14 of 46 5.8. The factum of accident and the identity of respondent no. 1 as driver of the offending vehicle stands proved from the testimony of PW1 Puran, who categorically deposed that he was crossing the road along with his family, when he saw that a DTC bus was coming from New Delhi Railway Station to Connaught Place, so they stopped at divider and suddenly an auto came from wrong side from Gate no. 1, New Delhi Railway Station and negligently drove his auto to cross the road and iron made bumper of backside of said auto stuck into DTC bus & got broken and its broken piece hit his leg and he got badly injured. Further, as per DAR, at the spot, CCTV camera was found installed and on checking the CCTV footage, it was revealed that one Auto rickshaw firstly enters into railway station and then tries to cross the road from wrong side as a result of which the injured sustains injury while crossing the road. The said CCTV footage was preserved. On 01.03.2023, IO along with Ct. Bhagirath again reached at New Delhi Railway Station in search of offending Auto and after some time, Auto bearing registration no. DL-1RL-9313 was seen coming, which was stopped and inquiries were made from the driver of said Auto. On inquiry, the name of said driver was revealed as Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Lakhan, R/o Vill. Dharampur, P.O. Hulasganj, PS Hulasganj, Jehanabad, Bihar. The said driver was also inquired about the accident in question, who stated that on 25.02.2023, at about 10.00 p.m., when he was trying to take the auto from wrong side, but due to narrow space as at one side there was divider and on the other side there was one DTC bus, his auto got stuck in the backside of the DTC bus, as a result of which, the bumper of his auto got broken and it hit against the leg of a person, who had MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 15 of 46 sustained injury and that he got scared and ran away from the spot along with his auto. The disclosure statement of driver of said auto was recorded. He was arrested and was released on bail. Thereafter IO issued notice u/s 91 CrPC to Auto driver Anil (respondent no. 1 herein) and asked him to produce the relevant documents of said auto, on which, the said auto driver produced photocopy of his driving licence No. BR0220220011542, photocopy of insurance of vehicle No. DL-1RL-9313, and policy no. DO74368557/27082022 to IO, which were taken into police possession. Thus, the factum of accident and the identity of respondent no. 1 Anil Kumar as driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Auto bearing registration no. DL-1RL-9313 stands established.
5.9. On the aspect of rash and negligent driving, the petitioner, while deposing as PW1, has categorically deposed that while he along with his family was crossing the road, one DTC bus was coming from New Delhi Railway station which was going to Connaught Place and as such they stopped at the divider and suddenly an auto came from wrong side from Gate no. 1, New Delhi Railway Station and negligently drove his auto to cross the road and iron made bumper of backside of said auto stuck into DTC bus and got broken and its broken piece hit his leg badly and he got badly injured. Though in the cross- examination conducted on behalf of respondent no. 1, he admitted that as per his MLC already on record along with the DAR, accident with DTC bus is mentioned and there is no mention of involvement of any auto in the accident in the said MLC. However, the same is not fatal to the case of petitioner as MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 16 of 46 no suggestion was given to PW1 that the said fact was told by him only to the doctor concerned and admittedly it is not mentioned in the MLC of the petitioner that the said fact was stated by the petitioner himself and hence it cannot be ruled out that the said fact was wrongly got recorded by someone who had taken the petitioner to the hospital for his medical treatment. Furthermore, in the cross-examination conducted on behalf of respondent no. 3-insurance company, PW1 has stated that he does not remember whether the offending auto hit him or some part of the auto after separating from the auto hit him as a result of accident of auto with the DTC bus. Thus, the petitioner has nowhere categorically denied that the accident did not take place with the auto or that he did not receive any injury due to hitting of broken part of offending auto. PW1 has denied the suggestion that there was no negligence at all on the part of the driver of the auto or that the said auto has been falsely implicated in the present case in collusion with the police officials. He has further denied the suggestion that the accident took place only with DTC bus and the alleged offending auto did not hit him or caused any such accident. The respondent no. 1 had appeared in the witness box as RW1. However in his affidavit of evidence Ex. RW1/1, he he has nowhere stated that the petitioner had sustained injury due to accident with a DTC bus. Furthermore in his cross- examination conducted on behalf of the petitioner, the respondent no. 1/RW1 has voluntarily stated that he was stuck in traffic jam and after about 5 minutes, the DTC bus came from behind and hit the petitioner. The respondent no.1 has failed to bring on record any convincing material to demolish the incriminating testimony of the petitioner against him and to show that he was not rash and MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 17 of 46 negligent while driving the offending vehicle. Furthermore, as per DAR, the respondent no. 1 (driver) was driving the offending Auto without any permit and therefore Section 66(1)/192A M.V. Act was invoked against Harbir Singh, owner of said auto, qua which GD No. 0106A was recorded. As per said GD, kalandara proceedings u/s 66(1)/192A M.V. Act were initiated against respondent no. 2 Harbir Singh. The perusal of DAR further reveals that the mechanical inspection of the Auto bearing registration no. DL-1RL-9313 was got conducted. It further reveals that respondent no. 2 sold the offending Auto to one Santosh but did not get transferred its documents in the name of said Santosh and the said vehicle is still registered in his name. It is pertinent to mention here that since neither the respondent no. 2 nor anyone had appeared on his behalf, therefore the said respondent was proceeded as ex-parte. The respondent no. 2 had not entered into witness box and as such adverse inference is drawn against him. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019, MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310. The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1RL-9313 (part of DAR Ex. PW1/5) reveals that there were fresh damages i.e. rear MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 18 of 46 right side steel angle iron channel support welding was broken and was freshly welded. The mechanical inspection report of the Bus No. DL-1PC-7861 with which the bumper of the offending Auto had got struck, reveals that there were fresh damages i.e. its front bumper was damaged, front show grill was pressed and front show panels were pressed, right side rear/cover bumber was damaged and right side rear cover outer body cover portion was dented/pressed. From the same and from the site plan, which is also the part of DAR Ex. PW1/5), on the principle of res ispa loquitur, negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 in causing the said accident, is indicated. In this regard, reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of State of Orissa Vs Nalini Kumar Patnaik, 1989 ACJ 126 Orissa. Furthermore, in view of filing of DAR containing the charge-sheet for the offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC & other relevant documents against the respondent no. 1 and in terms of the judgment in the case of "National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana & Ors.", 2009 ACJ 287, Delhi, respondent no. 1 (driver of the offending vehicle) is held to be negligent on the basis of preponderance of probability. From the DAR, it is also proved that respondent no.2-Harbir Singh was the registered owner of the offending vehicle, which was insured with respondent no.3-Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. vide Policy no. D074368557/27082022 for the period from 29.08.2023 to 28.08.2023 (factum of insurance of the offending Auto has also been admitted by the respondent no.3-insurance company).
5.10. The MLC of petitioner/injured bearing no. 319 dated 25.02.2023 of Lady Harding Medical College & Smt. S.K. MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 19 of 46 Hospital New Delhi Ex. PW1/2, reveals that he was admitted in said hospital on 25.02.2023 at about 10.17 p.m., with alleged history of "Trauma to Lt. Leg foot by DTC bus running over the joint near Railway Station Entry Gate towards Connaught Place on 25.02.2023 at 10:00 P.M.". However, as already discussed in the preceding para, it stands established on record that the injured Puran met with an accident with Auto bearing registration no. DL-1RL-9313 and received injuries. It further reveals that there was laceration of 3 x 6 cm on front of shin of lt. Leg and 2 x 6 cm on medial aspect of shin of lt. Leg. It further reveals that on clinical and radiological examination, nature of injury was opined as grievous. Thus, it stands established that the petitioner/injured had sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question.
5.11. Accordingly issues No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
6. Issue No.2: Whether the driver of offending TSR was not carrying a valid driving licence for driving the said TSR category vehicle and thus, there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act/Rules, on the part of driver of offending TSR? If so, its effect? OPR-3 6.1. The onus to prove the above issue was upon the respondent no. 3-insurance company.
6.2. The respondent no. 3 insurance company vide its written submissions had claimed that the said respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner under the facts and circumstances of the case as the petitioner has failed to prove MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 20 of 46 his case. It is further claimed that there was no valid and effective permit and both respondent no. 1 (driver of offending vehicle) and respondent no. 2 (owner of offending vehicle) have failed to provide permit despite notice. It is further mentioned claimed that DL of the driver (R1 herein) was not valid for the category of the offending vehicle i.e. TSR (Commercial) category, hence, the respondent no. 3 is entitled for recovery rights against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Furthermore, the respondent no. 3 had examined R3W1 Sh. Paramvir Singh vide affidavit of evidence Ex.R3W1/A, who had proved that respondent no. 3 insurance company had served upon the respondents no. 1 and 2, being driver and owner of the Vehicle No. DL-1RL-9313, a notice under Order 12 rule 8 of CPC, through Sh. Vijay Kumar, Advocate, copy of which is Ex. R3W1/1 & registered postal receipts are Ex. R3W1/2 to Ex. R3W1/4, but said respondent no. 1 and 2 had not replied or complied with the said notice. He has further proved certified copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/5.
6.3. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 has relied upon the following judgments:-
i) Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011, titled as Mukund Dewangan Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., date of decision:-03.07.2017 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
ii) Civil Appeal No (s). 841/2018, titled as M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. ltd. Vs Rambha Devi & Ors, date of decision:-22.11.2023 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 21 of 46
iii) Complaint Case no. CC/215/2022, titled as M/s. Jeevan Road Lines Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., date of decision: 01.08.2023 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
6.4. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 has submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgments, a commercial vehicle having weight upto 7500 kg. does not require to have a separate commercial licence.
6.5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011, titled as Mukund Dewangan Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., date of decision:-03.07.2017, has held in para no. 46 as under:-
46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of 'light motor vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 22 of 46 vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 59 10(2)(e) of the Act 'Transport Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:
(i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg.
That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of 60 light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 23 of 46 only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect."
6.6. The driving licence bearing No. BR02 20220011542 of respondent no. 1 Anil Kumar reveals that it was covered under the category of "NT" and class of vehicle was LMV-3 Wheeler NT and "Light Motor Vehicle". Thus in terms of the aforesaid judgment, respondent no. 1 (driver), who was having the aforesaid licence, was not required to have a separate licence for driving the offending commercial TSR as the weight of the said TSR was admittedly less than 7500 kg. Hence, it is held that the respondent no. 1 was holding a valid driving licence to drive the offending commercial Auto bearing registration no. DL- 1RL-9313.
6.7. Issue No.2 is accordingly decided in favour of respondent no. 1 and against the respondent No. 3.
7. Issue No. 3: whether injured/petitioner is entitled to compensation? If yes, to what extent and from whom? (OPP).
MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 24 of 46 7.1. The onus of proving the above issue was upon the petitioner/injured.
7.2. In so far as respondent no. 3/insurance company is concerned, it did not offer any compensation to the petitioner/injured and rather claimed that said respondent was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner/injured since respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle on the day of accident in question without having any valid or effective driving licence and the offending vehicle was without permit.
7.3. The petitioner/injured had claimed in relevant parts of para no. 1, 4,6,7, 11 and 12 of his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A as under:-
"2. I state that I work as Peon on contract basis in ISRO situated at Lok Nayak Bhawan, where I earn Rs. 18,000/- per month.
4. That PCR police official came at the spot took me to Lady Harding Hospital, where I got admitted on 25.02.2023 and my MLC was prepared.....................................................
6. I state the doctor treated me and operated my leg and plate was planted inside my leg. The doctor discharged me on dated 02.03.2023. That my leg again started pain then again I got admitted on dated 12.07.2023 and got discharged on 16.07.2023, where my operation again took place. That I have still pain in my leg due to which I had regular visit at the hospital, I lastly visited hospital on 05.08.2023. .................................................................
7. I stated that I had to spend Rs. 27,000/- on my treatment, apart from the above I had to buy MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 25 of 46 walker and other accessories for my assistance for which I could not get any bills.
.................................................................
11. I state that due to the accident, the Petitioner has various injury, which caused him great mental and physical pain & agony.
12. I state that the Petitioner claims Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Only) from the Respondents.
7.4. The petitioner is relying upon his MLC Ex. PW1/2, as per which, there was laceration of 3 x 6 cm on front of shin of left leg and 2 x 6 cm on medial aspect of shin of left leg. It further reveals that on clinical and radiological examination, nature of injury was opined to be grievous. He has further relied upon discharge summary of Lady Harding Medical College & Smt. Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, New Delhi, which is part of Ex. PW3/A (Colly). As per Ex. PW3/A (colly), the petitioner remained admitted in the said hospital from 25.02.2023 till 02.03.2023. It further reveals that the petitioner was treated there as a patient of "L compound grade III B BB fracture leg" and was operated upon on 26.02.2023. The petitioner has further relied upon discharge summary of Lady Harding Medical College & Smt. Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, New Delhi, which is also part of Ex. PW3/A (colly), as per which, the petitioner was admitted on 12.07.2023 and was discharged on 16.07.2023 and that his operation was conducted on 13.07.2023. It further reflects that X-ray of left leg with ankle was advised. The petitioner is further relying upon his Out patient record Ex. PW1/3 (colly) of Lady Harding Medical College & Smt. S.K. Hospital, which shows that the petitioner had visited the said hospital on 22.07.2023 and MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 26 of 46 05.08.2023.
7.5. As regards the expenses on medical treatment, the petitioner has claimed that he had spent a sum of Rs. 27,000/- on his treatment and apart from the above he had to buy walker and other accessories for his assistance for which he could not get any bills. In this regard, the petitioner is relying upon the medical bills Ex. PW1/4 (Colly). The details of such bills are as under:-
S.N Bill Amount Amount to be
o. paid to the
petitioner
1. Cash memo no. Rs. 250/- NA
9671 dated
18.06.2023 qua
purchase of spinal
needle issued by
Sabd Pharmacy,
Paharganj, Delhi.
2. Bill no. 000688 Rs. 100/- NA
dated 06.04.2023
qua purchase of
medicine issued
by Vani Medicos,
Vasant Kunj,
Delhi.
3. Bill No. 43896 Rs. 125/- NA
dated 14.03.2023
qua purchase of
betadine and
bandage issued
by Vani Medicos,
Vasant Kunj,
Delhi.
4, Bill no. 44709 Rs. 20/- NA
dated 20.03.2023
qua purchase of
bandage issued
by Vani Medicos,
Vasant Kunj,
Delhi.
5. Bill no. 44708 Rs. 25/- NA
dated 20.03.2023
qua purchase of
bandage issued
by Vani Medicos,
Vasant Kunj,
Delhi.
MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 27 of 46
6. Bill no. 42618 Rs. 120/- NA
dated 04.03.2023
qua purchase of
betadine issued
by Vani Medicos,
Vasant Kunj,
Delhi.
7. Bill no. 13206 Rs. 1040/- Rs. 761.26/-
dated 16.07.2023
qua purchase of
medicines issued
by Vani Medicos,
Vasant Kunj,
Delhi.
8. Invoice dated Rs. 157/- Rs.99.16/-
14.07.2023 qua
purchase of
medicine issued
by Amrit
Pharmacy, at
Lady Harding
Medical College,
New Delhi.
9. Bill no. 45302 Rs. 64/- NA
dated 24.03.2023
qua purchase of
bandage and
Paracip tablet
issued by Vani
Medicos, Vasant
Kunj, Delhi.
10. Bill no. 1532 Rs. 100/- NA
dated 12.04.2023
qua purchase of
medicine issued
by Vani Medicos,
Vasant Kunj,
Delhi.
11. Invoice no. 26034 Rs. 390/- Rs.270.1/-
dated 03.03.2023
qua purchase of
medicine issued
by NACOF
Pradhan Mantri
Bhartiya
Janaushadhi
Kendra,
Ladyharding,
New Delhi.
12. Bill dated Rs. 179/- NA
18.07.2023 issued
by Medeor
Hospital qua
purchase of
medicine
13. Cash memo no. Rs. 95.60/- NA.
MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 28 of 46
1707 dated
25.03.2023 issued
by Kharbanda
Medipoint, Sarai
Mehrauli, New
Delhi, qua
purchase of
medicine
14 Payment receipt Rs. 500/- NA
no. 1497 dated
18.06.2023 issued
by V.K.
Diagnostic
Laboratory qua
certain tests
15. Invoice dated Rs. 42/- NA
28.02.2023 qua
purchase of
injection issued
by Amrit
Pharmacy,
LHMC, New
Delhi.
16. Invoice dated Rs. 315/- NA
17.06.2023 qua
purchase of Trop
Kit issued by
Amrit Pharmacy,
LHMC, New
Delhi.
17. Invoice dated Rs. 99/- NA
28.06.2023 qua
purchase of
medicine issued
by Amrit
Pharmacy,
LHMC, New
Delhi.
18. Bill No. 44434 Rs. 10/- NA
dated 18.03.2023
issued by Vani
Medicos, Vasant
Kunj, Delhi.
19. Bill No. 1532 Rs. 100/- NA
dated 12.04.2023
issued by Vani
Medicos, Vasant
Kunj, Delhi.
20. Invoice no. 452 Rs. 30/- NA
dated 14.07.2023
issued by
NACOF Pradhan
Mantri Bhartiya
Janaushadhi
Kendra, Lady
Harding, New
MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 29 of 46
Delhi.
21. Bill No. 42618 Rs. 120/- NA
dated 04.03.2023
issued by Vani
Medicos, Vasant
Kunj, Delhi.
22. Bill No. 44155 Rs. 18/- NA
dated 16.03.2023
issued by Vani
Medicos, Vasant
Kunj, Delhi.
23. Invoice dated Rs. 219/- NA
01.03.2023 qua
purchase of syrup
issued by Amrit
Pharmacy,
LHMC, New
Delhi.
24. Bill No. 23- Rs. 2200/- NA
24FB/1085 dated
22.05.2023 issued
by Indian Spinal
Injuries Centre,
Vasant Kunj,
Delhi.
25. Invoice no. Rs. 6,500/- Rs. 6500/-
A000749 dated
14.07.2023 issued
by Krishna
Medisurg,
Ashram Marg,
Delhi qua
purchase of Tibia
I/L Nailing set
26. Dressing from Rs. 1250/- NA
03.03.2023 to
28.03.2023 issued
by Dr. Ashok
Kumar, Vasant
Kunj, Delhi.
27. Invoice dated Rs. 99/-
26.02.2023 issued Rs. 99/-
by Amrit
Parmacy, Lady
Harding Medical
college, Delhi,
qua purchase of
medicine
28. Bill no. Rs. 1,500/- NA
OQCS19457
dated 08.07.2023
issued by Medeor
Hospital, Delhi,
qua ECHO
Cardiography
29. Invoice dated Rs. 331/- NA
MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 30 of 46
26.02.2023 issued
by Amrit
Parmacy, Lady
Harding Medical
college, Delhi,
qua purchase of
medicine
30. Bill No. Rs. 1200/- Rs. 1200/-
OQCS20445
dated 18.07.2023
issued by EWS
qua consultation
charges towards
Dr. Orthopaedics
Team unit 1
31. Invoice No. Rs. 8,400/- Rs. 8400/-
ROC412 dated
27.02.2023 issued
by Ruhani Ortho
Care, Nehru
Vihar, Delhi, qua
external fixator
single pin clamp-
11, Tube to tube
1, Rod-4, Schanz
Complete case
32. Dressing from Rs. 1300/- NA
18.07.2023 to
30.07.2023 issued
by Dr. Ashok
Total Rs. 26,898.6/- Rs. 17,330/-
(Round Off).
7.6. During course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the petitioner had stated that petitioner was advised to walk with the assistance of a walker and petitioner had purchased the same, but he is not having any bill in this regard. The discharge summary of LHMC Hospital Ex. PW1/3(colly) reveals that the petitioner was advised walker assistant. However, in absence of any bill, the petitioner cannot be compensated for the same. As regards the aforesaid medical bills Ex. PW1/4 (colly), there are prescriptions of only some of the medicines which were prescribed to him and which found mentioned in the said bills. Therefore, the petitioner can only be compensated for the bills, MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 31 of 46 for which there is prescription on record and for the medicines, which were prescribed to him. Thus, I am of the considered view that the petitioner/injured is entitled for a sum of Rs. 17,330/- (the details of which are mentioned in the aforesaid tabulated form) as compensation towards medical expenses.
7.7. As regards the nursing/attendant charges, the petitioner had not claimed any amount towards this head in his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A nor filed any Form XIV. However, as already discussed in preceding para, the injury sustained by the petitioner was opined to be grievous in nature and he was also operated upon twice, therefore, he must have required the assistance of an attendant and he would have incurred some expenditure for the said purpose. Hence a notional sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded under the head of Nursing/Attendant Charges.
7.8. In so far as the expenses towards Special Diet, the petitioner had not claimed any amount towards this head in his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A nor filed any Form XIV. Here is no prescription on record advising special diet to the petitioner. However, as already discussed in preceding para, the injury sustained by the petitioner was opined to be grievous in nature and he was also operated upon twice, therefore, he must have required some special diet and his family would have incurred expenses on the same. Considering the facts and circumstances and the nature of the injury sustained by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner is entitled to notional sum of Rs. 20,000/- under the head of Special Diet.
MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 32 of 46 7.9. Now coming to the conveyance charges, the petitioner had not filed any bill towards the said charges. However, as already discussed above, the petitioner remained admitted in the Lady Harding Hospital from 25.02.2023 till 02.03.2023 and from 12.07.2023 to 16.07.2023 and his operations were conducted on 26.02.2023 & 13.07.2023. Further, the petitioner had visited the said hospital on 22.07.2023 and was called for review and he also visited the said hospital on 05.08.2023 and as such he must have hired the ambulance or any other commercial vehicle for travelling purpose. Furthermore, keeping in view the grievous injury suffered by the petitioner and the fact that he had visited the hospital for the said purpose on many occasions, the petitioner is awarded notional sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance charges.
7.10. The petitioner/injured had not stated in his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A about the nature of job he was doing at the time of accident. He stated therein that he work as Peon on contract basis in ISRO situated at Lok Nayak Bhawan, where he earned Rs. 18,000/- per month. However, in his financial statement recorded on 30.11.2023, he claimed that presently he is unemployed due to the injuries received by him in the accident and earlier he was doing the job of housekeeping on contract basis in ISRO at Khan Market, Delhi and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there is no employment or salary document of the petitioner nor such documents were submitted on record and that his salary may be considered as per Minimum Wages Act prevailing at the time of MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 33 of 46 accident. He had also admitted that the petitioner has not filed any educational/matriculation certificate on record. This being the background, the minimum wages applicable for Unskilled Worker i.e. Rs. 16,792/- prevailing in Delhi at the time of accident in question i.e. 25.02.2023, shall be considered as income of the petitioner. Though the petitioner has stated in his cross-examination that no bed rest was advised to him, but as per Ex. PW1/3 (colly), the petitioner remained admitted in the Lady Harding Hospital from 25.02.2023 till 02.03.2023 and from 12.07.2023 to 16.07.2023 and his operations were conducted on 26.02.2023 & 13.07.2023. The petitioner had visited the said hospital on 22.07.2023 and was called for review and he also visited the said hospital on 05.08.2023. Furthermore, the injuries sustained by the petitioner were opined to be grievous in nature. Considering the same, the nature of injuries and the likely time to recover to do his job, I hold that the petitioner shall be entitled to notional loss of income for 03 months i.e. Rs. 16,792/- X 3=Rs.50,376/-.
7.11. The petitioner has claimed in his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A that due to the accident, he had suffered various injury, which caused him great mental and physical pain and agony. The petitioner has not claimed any amount towards the head of "Loss due to Mental & Physical Shock" & "Pain & Suffering". However, keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, he must have suffered mental agony and pain due to the grievous injury sustained by him. Therefore, a notional sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Total Rs. 40,000/-) is awarded to the petitioner under each head of "Loss due to Mental & MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 34 of 46 Physical Shock" and "Pain & Suffering".
7.12. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 17,330/- Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 20,000/- (notional)
Expenditure on Nursing/Attendant Rs. 20,000/- (notional) charges Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 20,000/- (notional) Loss of Income of 03 months Rs.16,792/-x 3 =Rs.50,376/-
Any other loss/expenditure Nil.
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 20,000 + 20,000= Suffering Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of amenities Nil.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil.
hardship,disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 1,67,706/-
7.13. Vide its written submissions, the respondent no. 3 insurance company is praying that in case the petitioner is allowed any amount of compensation, then the rate of interest may not be more that 5-6% per annum a the bank rates have been considerably lowered on the Fixed Deposit Receipts and interest of 7.5 per annum in case of non-payment within four weeks. It MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 35 of 46 is further mentioned therein that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "Smt. Kaushnuma Begum Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [S.L.P. (C) No. 1431/2000], though hold the rate of interest to the tune of 9% per annum, but was also pleased to lay down the method to compute the said rate of interest applicable in a Motor Accident Claim Case, which is liable to be kept in consonance with the rate of interest being granted by the Nationalized Banks on FDRs having the duration of one year. The insurance company has further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "Chandrakanta Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 2527/2020] decided on 08.06.2020, 'Savita Vs Cholamandlam Insurance Co. ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 2611/2020), decided on 16.06.2020 and Sri Anthony @ Anthony Swamy Vs The Managing Director, KSRTC & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 2551/2020] decided on 10.06.2020.
7.14. I may note that interest @ 6% per annum was awarded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases relied upon by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3-insurance company. Considering the entirety of the facts, it is held that claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 01.06.2023 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
8. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/ Tribunal 30.11.2023 according to which, monthly expenses of his family are about Rs. 20,000/- per month.
8.1. Keeping in view the above, I hereby direct that on MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 36 of 46 realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs. 67,706/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred & Six only) plus entire interest amount be released to the petitioner/ claimant and the balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) shall be put in 10 monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 10 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to the petitioner only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account in a bank near his residence with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
8.2. The above FDR(s) shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 37 of 46
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.
8.3. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 25.02.2023
2. Name of the Injured: Puran
3. Age of the Injured: 50 years
4. Occupation of the Injured: Not proved
5. Income of the Injured: Rs. 16,792/-
(Minimum wages for unskilled worker in Delhi at MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 38 of 46 the time of accident)
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken Lady Harding Medical College & Smt. S.K. Hospital, New Delhi.
8. Period of Hospitalization: 25.02.2023 till 02.03.2023 12.07.2023 to 16.07.2023
9. Whether any permanent Nil disability? If yes, give details:
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 17,330/-
ii) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 20,000/-
(notional)
(iii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 20,000/-
(no document) ( notional)
(iv) Cost of Nursing/ attendant
Rs. 20,000/-
(notional)
(v) Loss of earning Nil.
(vi) Loss of Income for 03 months Rs. 16,792 X 3=
Rs. 50,376/-
vii) Any other loss which may Nil.
require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 39 of 46
12. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 20,000+ 20,000= physical shock Rs. 40,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil.
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability Nil assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Nil capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Nil (income x % earning capacity x Multiplier)
14. Total Rs. 1,67,706/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 6%
16. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 5059/-
award (06 months 01 day)
7. Total amount including Interest Rs. 1,72,765/-
MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 40 of 46
18. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 8.1.
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para no. 8.1.
20. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para award amount of the no. 8.1.
claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of the 12.01.2024 award Liability:
9. The case of respondent no. 3 is that respondent no. 1 (driver of the offending vehicle) Anil Kumar was driving the offending vehicle without holding valid and effective permit in respect of the said vehicle on the date of accident i.e. 25.02.2023, which was registered in the name of respondent no. 2 Harbir Singh and as such respondent no. 3 was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. In this regard, the respondent no. 3 insurance company had examined R3W1 Paramvir Singh, who had proved the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 of CPC Ex.
R3W1/1 & registered postal receipts Ex. R3W1/2 to Ex. R3W1/4. Furthermore, as per DAR also, the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle without holding any valid permit and hence, the investigating agency had initiated separate kalandara proceedings against respondent no. 2 u/s 66(1)/192A M.V. Act. However, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3-Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd. on the day of accident, it is respondent no.3, who is ultimately held liable to indemnify the insurance and to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner under the statutory liability. However, MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 41 of 46 the insurance Company is entitled for recovery rights qua respondents no. 1 & 2, but after satisfying the award amount. Issue No.3 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Relief
10. Since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. therefore, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,67,706/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred & Six only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of initial DAR i.e. 01.06.2023 with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. However, after satisfying the award, the Insurance Company shall have a right to recover the award amount from the respondents no.1 and 2 during execution proceedings without filing a separate civil suit.
10.1. A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.3 i.e. Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. for compliance within the time granted. Respondent No.3 Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
10.2. Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 42 of 46 12.01.2024 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
10.3. Copy of the award be also sent to the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).
10.4. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (ASHUTOSH KUMAR) Dated: 02.12.2023 PO, MACT-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 43 of 46 FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 25.02.2023 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report 27.02.2023
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
to the victim(s) 01.06.2023
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
from the Driver Not mentioned.
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner Not mentioned.
6 Date of filing of the Form-
V-Interim Accident Report 15.04.2023
(IAR)
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from Not mentioned.
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VIII
- Detail Accident Report 02.12.2022
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 01.06.2023
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Yes.
Company admitted his
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 44 of 46 12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No. part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer of No response as no legal offer the Insurance Company. was made.
14 Date of award 02.12.2023 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to 01.06.2023 open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings Not produced and has bank account(s) near the undertaken to produce the place of their residence same.
alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card?
18 Permanent residential As per Award. address of the claimant(s).
19 Whether the claimant(s) The claimant has undertaken MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 45 of 46 savings bank account(s) is near their place of to produce the same on record. residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time Yes. The Financial Statement of passing of the Award to of the claimant was recorded ascertain his/their financial on 30.11.2023 condition?
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) PO, MACT-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 02.12.2023 MACT No. 504/2023 Puran Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. Page No. 46 of 46