Delhi District Court
Shri Ravinder Chaudhary vs Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 1 Of 47 on 9 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJLI GOEL, PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL2, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No. 337/14
Date of Institution: 06.05.2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Ravinder Chaudhary
S/o Shri Wazir Singh
R/o H. No.109/1, Office Enclave
Pinto Park, 13 BRD
Air Force Palam
Delhi Cantt.
New Delhi 110010. .... Petitioner
Suit No.336/14
Date of institution: 06.05.2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ms. Monika Chaudhary
W/o Shri Ravinder Chaudhary
R/o H. No.109/1, Office Enclave
Pinto Park, 13 BRD
Air Force Palam
Delhi Cantt.
New Delhi 110010. .... Petitioner
Versus
Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 1 of 47
Common Respondents
1. Shri Sachin Kumar
S/o Shri Dharampal
R/o H. No.92, Jharera
Delhi Cantt.
New Delhi110010.
2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
1001, LFG, Naiwala
Arya Samaj Road
Naiwala Karol Bagh
New Delhi - 110005. ...Respondents
Final Arguments heard : 05.09.2014
Award reserved for : 09.10.2014
Date of Award : 09.10.2014
AWARD
1. Vide this judgmentcumaward, I proceed to decide two petitions filed
u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as amended uptodate
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of compensation arising out of the
same road accident.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 17.11.2012 at about 9.30 p.m. the
injured/petitioner Ravinder Chaudhary was going driving his Wagon R car
bearing No.HR12L0503 as per traffic rules and regulation in which the
Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 2 of 47
petitioner Monika Chaudhary was seated on the front left seat from Sarojini
Nagar to their residence and when they reached at Old Palam Air Port Road,
in front of CWE (AF) Palam, GE (AF), North Palam, PS Delhi Cantt., New
Delhi in the meantime one Eicher Truck bearing No.DL1LM0958 driven by
the respondent Sunil Kumar (since deceased) came from the opposite
direction in a very rash and negligent manner and in a very high speed and
without following traffic rules and regulations, and without caring for the other
traffic on the road and suddenly and abruptly it came on the side of the
petitioners and in the process hit/struck the car of the injured/petitioners from
its front side, due to the huge impact of which the injured/petitioners sustained
multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body. It is averred that from
the place of the accident the injured/petitioners were removed to Base
Hospital, Delhi Cantt where the doctors on duty prepared their MLC. It is
averred that the accident had been caused solely due to the rash and
negligent act of the driver/Sunil Kumar (since deceased) who was driving the
offending vehicle/Eicher Truck bearing No.DL1LM0958 and innocent persons
became the victim of the same without their own fault. It is stated that FIR No.
271/12, u/s 279/338 of IPC, PS Delhi Cantt. was registered in respect of the
accident. It is averred that the driver/Sunil Kumar (since deceased) who was
driving the offending vehicle/Eicher Truck bearing No.DL1LM0958 who
caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving died on 4.1.2013. It
is averred that the accident had been caused solely due to the rash and
negligent act of the driver/ Sunil Kumar (since deceased) who was driving the
Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 3 of 47
offending truck at the time of causing the accident under the instruction,
permission, employment, guidance, control and supervision of the respondent
No.1 who is the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of the causing of the
accident and the same was insured with the respondent No.2 at the time of
the accident hence both the respondents are jointly, severally and vicariously
liable to make the payment of the awarded amount to the petitioners.
FACTS OF SUIT No.337/14
3. It is averred that in the accident the injured/petitioner Ravinder Chaudhary had sustained multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body resulting in Head injury, Fracture both transverse process C7, Fracture 2nd, 3rd and 4th right ribs, fracture 1st left rib, blow out fracture lamins papyraces of Rt Orbit, loss of two upper central incisors with fracture lower two incisors, B/L hemorrhagic contusion lung Rt > Lt, Deep cut on upper lip and other multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body. It is averred that from the place of accident the injured/petitioner was removed to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, where the doctors on duty prepared his MLC. It is averred that he remained as an indoor patient from 17.11.2012 to 29.11.2012 and was discharged from the hospital with the advice to attend the hospital regularly and to take rich and high protein diet for early recovery. It is averred that he was further advised for complete bed rest and the treatment of the injured/petitioner is still continuing and till date Rs.20,000/ had been Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 4 of 47 incurred on medical expenses. It is averred that he has not totally recovered from the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It is averred that he had engaged an attendant for two months to look after him for his daily routine work. It is averred that he has spent a huge amount on medicines and treatment, conveyance, rich and high protein diet and attendant. It is averred that he has become a permanent disabled person and he will be requiring a plastic surgery on upper lip which will cost heavily. It is averred that in the accident the injured/petitioner had lost his two front upper teeth and fractured two lower incisors and he will have to spend a lot of money on his artificial teeth implantation throughout his life. It is averred that the petitioner visited the hospital on 26.12.2012 for follow up and his condition was not stable so he was again admitted in Base Hospital from 26.11.2012 to 02.01.2013. On 2.1.2013 he was shifted to 4 Air Force Hospital, Kalai Kunda, Kharkpur, West Bengal for medical down gradation board and was discharged on 05.01.2013. It is averred that the injured/petitioner has not totally recovered from the injuries and will be requiring medical assistance throughout his life. It is averred that he would have to spend a lot of money on his future treatment and for plastic surgery of his upper lip. It is averred that the injured has suffered great financial losses because of the accident towards his treatment and medicine, conveyance, rich and high protein diet, attendant and loss of job. It is averred that he has also suffered losses towards loss of social life and enjoyment, loss of inconvenience and hardship, loss towards pain and suffering and general damages.
Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 5 of 47
4. It is averred that the petitioner is aged 40 years and working as Wing Commander in Indian Air Force and was posted as a commanding officer in Bhubaneshwar. He was drawing a salary of Rs.91,264/ per month. It is averred that because of the accident he was not able to attend his duties for long time and thus suffered great financial loss. It is prayed that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
FACTS OF SUIT No.336/14
5. It is averred that the petitioner Monika Chaudhary was 32 years of age at the time of the accident. She was a house wife and she used to do all the house hold work and take care of her family. It is averred that because of the accident in which she sustained multiple grievous injuries she had to engage a maid servant to do all the house hold work and to cook food to whom she used to pay more than Rs.5,000/ per month till date. It is averred that because of the accident she had suffered great financial losses. It is averred that in the accident the injured/petitioner had sustained multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body resulting in Head injury, Fracture Nasal Bridge, wound at upper lip, abrasion superficial and other multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body. It is averred that from the place of the accident, the injured/petitioner was removed to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi, where doctors on duty prepared her MLC. She remained as an Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 6 of 47 indoor patient from 18.11.2012 to 19.11.2012 and was discharged from the hospital with the advice to attend the hospital regularly and to take rich and high protein diet for early recovery. It is averred that she was further advised for complete bed rest. It is averred that the treatment of the injured/petitioner is still continuing and till date Rs.15,000/ had been incurred on medical expenses. It is averred that she has not totally recovered from the injuries sustained by her in the accident. She has spent a huge amount on medicines and treatment, conveyance, rich and high protein diet and attendant. It is averred that she has become a permanent disabled person. It is averred that the injured/petitioner has suffered great financial losses because of the accident towards her treatment and medicine, conveyance, rich and high protein diet, attendant and loss of job. It is averred that she has also suffered losses towards loss of social life and enjoyment, loss of inconvenience and hardship, loss towards pain and suffering and general damages. It is prayed that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
6. Reply was filed on behalf of the owner/respondent No.1 stating therein that the petition does not disclose any cause of action in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent No.1 and the alleged cause of action is a false and concocted one. It is averred that the respondent No.1 is the registered owner of the vehicle in question but the respondent No.1 has no personal knowledge about the accident as the offending vehicle was with the Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 7 of 47 driver namely Shri Sunil S/o Shri Rajinder, who has already expired on 4th January 2013. It is averred that on 17th November, 2011 at about 9.30 p.m. the driver of the respondent No.1 had not met with any accident and the respondent No.1 is wrongly and falsely impleaded in the case. It is averred that if any accident happened, it might be caused due to either any other vehicle or the sole negligence, carelessness and violating the traffic rules and regulations by the injured persons themselves only, therefore the respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. It is averred that the vehicle in question Eicher bearing No.DL1LM0958 is duly insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No.101026/31/12/016630 valid from 6th February, 2012 to 5th February, 2013 and further the DL, RC, Permit and fitness have been verified by the IO, which are true and correct. It is averred that as such if any liability arises it has to be borne by the Insurance Company as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The contents of the DAR/AIR were denied for want of knowledge.
7. Legal offer was filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 stating that as per the MLC of the injured placed on record Shri Ravinder Chaudhary had sustained fracture in third rib and multiple injuries and the injured Monika Chaudhary had sustained fracture on nasal bridge. It was stated that there are no Medical Bills, filed or verified by the IO. The accident had taken place involving vehicle bearing No.DL1LM0958 and the policy and the DL of the driver of the offending vehicle were confirmed and were in order. It is averred Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 8 of 47 that the injured has not filed any supporting document pertaining to the injuries sustained due to the alleged accident. An offer of Rs.40,000/ was made in the case of Shri Ravinder Chaudhary and of Rs.49,040/ in the case of Ms. Monika Chaudhary in addition to original medical bills subject to verification as lump sum compensation amount in full and final settlement of the claim and it was stated that no documentary proof of actual loss of income resulting from the accident had been placed on record.
8. Initially Detailed Accident Report was filed by the IO on 11.3.2013 and thereafter the claim petitions were filed on 6.5.2013. Matter was listed for conciliation but the same did not succeed. Vide order dated 9.9.2013 the present Suits No.337/14 and 336/14 were consolidated for the purpose of trial and decision as they arise out of the same accident and the present Suit No. 337/14 was directed to be treated as the lead case wherein the evidence would be recorded. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 9.09.2013 of my learned predecessor:
1. Whether Shri Ravinder Chaudhary and Smt. Monika Chaudhary sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 17.11.2012 at about 9.30 p.m. at Old Palam Air Port Road, in front of CWE(AF) Palam, GE(AF), North Palam within the jurisdiction of PS Delhi Cantt., New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL1LM0958 (Truck) being driven by Shri Sunil Kumar (since deceased), owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2? OPP.Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 9 of 47
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
9. On behalf of the petitioners, Shri Ravinder Chaudhary entered into the witness box as PW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. He stated that after the accident he and his wife both became unconscious. He also stated that in the accident the car was totally smashed (total loss). He stated that he had to engage an attendant for 3 months to look after him for his daily routine work. He stated that the doctors had told him that his upper teeth bone had also been damaged therefore firstly they had to do bone grafting and thereafter artificial teeth implantation could be done and the whole process would take approximately one year. He stated that the doctors had put him in A4G4 category temporary for 6 months which was the lowest medical category in their department. He stated that he had not totally recovered from the injuries and would be requiring medical assistance throughout his life. He stated that in the month of May, 2013 he was again admitted at 4 Air Force Hospital, Kalai Kunda, Kharkpur, West Bengal from 27.5.2013 to 28.5.2013 and the doctors had again put him in A4G4 category again for 6 months which was the lowest medical category in their department. He stated that in the month of November, 2013 he was declared fit by medical board and they gave him A4G1 category. He stated that after the accident he was not in a position to Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 10 of 47 move from one place to another and needed help for his daily routine work. He had engaged an attendant for 3 months at a salary of Rs.6,000/ per month. He stated that he had spent more than Rs.8,000/ on his medicine and treatment. He had spent more than Rs.30,000/ on conveyance and used to spend more than Rs.250/ per day on special diet for more than 6 months on the advice of doctors. He stated that most of his medicines had been provided by Base Hospital. However, some of the medicines had been purchased by him from outside but the bills had been misplaced and some were not obtained. He stated that due to the accident his entire life had changed. His life had been shattered. He stated that not only he but his entire family had suffered the losses also. He stated that because of the accident he was facing lot of difficulties in doing his daily routine work and he was suffering lot of inconvenience and hardship. He stated that his car was totally damaged in the accident so thereafter he was using private transportation for his movements which was very costly. He stated that he had not recovered from the injuries and still felt pain in his injuries and he could not do his daily need works. He stated that he found difficulty in doing many works which he used to do easily prior to the accident. Discharge summaries are Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/2, copy of movement order is Ex.PW1/3, copy of medical board proceedings is Ex.PW1/4, summary and opinion sheet are Ex.PW1/5, classification medical board instruction is Ex.PW1/6, the OPD card issued from Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. regarding future course of treatment for teeth implantation and bone grafting is Ex.PW1/7, copy of salary slip is Ex.PW1/8 and the copy of DL is Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 11 of 47 Ex.PW1/9. He was not crossexamined on behalf of the respondent No.1.
10. Ms. Monika Chaudhary entered into the witness box and led her evidence by way of affidavit which is also Ex.PW1/A reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. She stated that she was advised complete bed rest. Her treatment continued for more than 4 months. She stated that she had not totally recovered from the injuries sustained by her in the accident. She stated that she had spent huge amount on medicines and treatment, conveyance, rich and high protein diet and attendant. She stated that in the accident she and her husband both were seriously injured and there was no one to look after both of them and their two minor children. Therefore, they had to engage a maid servant to do all the house hold works and to take care of her minor children for three months. She stated that they used to pay her a salary of Rs. 10,000/ per month. She stated that due to the accident her entire life had changed. Her life had been shattered. She stated that not only she but her entire family had suffered the losses. She stated that because of the accident she is facing lot of difficulties in doing her daily routine work and is suffering a lot of inconvenience and hardship. Copy of discharge summary is Ex.PW1/1, copy of PAN card is Ex.PW1/2 and copy of degree of M.Sc. is Mark A. She was not crossexamined on behalf of the respondent No.1. PE was closed on 13.5.2014. It was stated by the learned counsels for the respondents that no RE was to be led and RE was closed on 13.5.2014.
Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 12 of 47
11. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the record. The petitioners were also examined on 13.5.2014 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.
12. My findings on the specific issues are as under:
Issue No. 1
13. As the petition has been filed u/s 166 M.V Act it was incumbent upon the petitioners to prove that they 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 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 Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 13 of 47 completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code against the driver;
(iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of deceased.
These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on part of the driver."
It is established law that in a claim petition under Motor Vehicle Act, the standard of proof to establish rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle is not at par with the criminal case where such rashness and negligence is required to be proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. In Kaushnamma Begum and others v. New India Assurance Company Limited, it was inter alia held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or 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.
14. The case of the petitioners is that on 17.11.2012 at about 9.30 p.m. the injured/petitioner Ravinder Chaudhary was going driving his Wagon R car Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 14 of 47 bearing No.HR12L0503 as per traffic rules and regulation in which the petitioner Monika Chaudhary was seated on the front left seat from Sarojini Nagar to their residence and when they reached at Old Palam Air Port Road, in front of CWE (AF) Palam, GE (AF), North Palam, PS Delhi Cantt., New Delhi in the meantime one Eicher Truck bearing No.DL1LM0958 driven by the respondent Sunil Kumar (since deceased) came from the opposite direction in a very rash and negligent manner and in a very high speed and without following traffic rules and regulations, and without caring for the other traffic on the road and suddenly and abruptly it came on the side of the petitioners and in the process hit/struck the car of the injured/petitioners from its front side, due to the huge impact of which the injured/petitioners sustained multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body. It was averred that from the place of the accident the injured/petitioners were removed to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt where the doctors on duty prepared their MLC. It was averred that the accident had been caused solely due to the rash and negligent act of the driver/Sunil Kumar (since deceased) who was driving the offending vehicle/Eicher Truck bearing No.DL1LM0958 and innocent persons became the victim of the same without their own fault. It was stated that FIR No.271/12, u/s 279/338 of IPC, PS Delhi Cantt. was registered in respect of the accident. It was stated that the driver/Sunil Kumar (since deceased) who was driving the offending vehicle/Eicher Truck bearing No.DL1LM0958 who caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving died on 4.1.2013. The petitioner Ravinder Chaudhary in paras 2 and 3 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 15 of 47 had reiterated the mode and manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition and Monika Chaudhary in paras 2 and 3 of her affidavit had also deposed to that effect.
15. The IO had filed the DAR comprising of the criminal record consisting of copy of charge sheet, copy of tehrir, copy of FIR No.271/2012 under sections 279/338 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt., copies of photographs, copy of site plan, copy of DDs, copy of MLC, copy of seizure memos, copy of mechanical inspection report of the Eicher Tempo and the Wagon R Car, copy of notice under Section 133 MV Act, copy of arrest memo, copy of the DL of the driver of the offending vehicle and its verification report, copy of RC of the offending vehicle along with its verification report, copy of certificate of permit of the offending vehicle with its verification report, copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle with its verification, copy of certificate of fitness of the offending vehicle with its verification report, copy of superdarinama in respect of the offending vehicle along with the order on the application for release of the vehicle on superdari and copy of death certificate of the driver of the offending vehicle. As per the FIR No.271/2012 under sections 279/338 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt. the case was registered on the basis of complaint of Ms. Monika Chaudhary who is one of the petitioners herein wherein she had stated the manner in which the accident had taken place. As per the charge sheet the driver of the offending vehicle Sunil respondent No.1 had been charge sheeted for the offence under sections Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 16 of 47 279/338 IPC though it was stated that he had already expired on 4.1.2013.
16. Reply was filed by the respondent No.1 averring that the petition does not disclose any cause of action against the respondent No.1. It was averred that the respondent No.1 is the registered owner of the vehicle in question but the respondent No.1 had no personal knowledge about the accident as the offending vehicle was with the driver namely Shri Sunil S/o Shri Rajinder, who had already expired on 4th January 2013. It was averred that on 17th November, 2011 at about 9.30 p.m. the driver of the respondent No.1 had not met with any accident and the respondent No.1 was wrongly and falsely impleaded in the case. It was averred that if any accident happened, it might be caused due to either any other vehicle or the sole negligence, carelessness and violating the traffic rules and regulations by the injured persons themselves only, therefore the respondent No.1 was not liable to pay any compensation. Thus the respondent No.1 had admitted being the owner of the offending vehicle but he stated that he had no personal knowledge about the accident as the offending vehicle was with the driver namely Shri Sunil S/o Shri Rajinder, who had already expired on 4th January 2013. However the respondent No.1 did not crossexamine PWs Ravinder Chaudhary and Monika Chaudhary nor led any evidence in support of his averments.
17. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 PW1 Shri Ravinder Chaudhary stated that he was accompanied with his wife at the time of the accident. He stated that he was on leave at the time of Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 17 of 47 the accident. He stated that the offending vehicle suddenly came on his side and hit his vehicle from the front side. He stated that the accident took place near the Air Force area and the place was well lighted at the time of the accident. He stated that he had seen the offending vehicle when it was at a distance of about 50 meters. He stated that there was no divider or yellow line on the road where the accident took place. He stated that he was semi conscious at the time of the accident. He was not aware who informed the police about the accident. He stated that his statement was not recorded by the police. He stated that he was never taken to the site of the accident. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his sole negligence. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 PW Monika Chaudhary stated that she was accompanied with her husband at the time of the accident. She stated that she was conscious at the time of the accident and after the accident. She could not tell after how much time after the accident she became semiunconscious. She stated that the accident took place near the Air Force area and the place was well lighted at the time of the accident. She stated that she was not aware who informed the police about the accident. She stated that her statement was recorded by the police on the next day in the hospital. She stated that she was never taken to the site of the accident. She denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to the sole rash and negligent driving of her husband.
Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 18 of 47
18. PW1 Shri Ravinder Chaudhary thus during crossexamination stated that he was accompanied with his wife at the time of the accident and Monika Chaudhary had also stated that she was accompanied with her husband at the time of the accident. He stated that he was on leave at the time of the accident. Both the petitioners were not aware who informed the police about the accident. Ravinder Chaudhary stated that his statement was not recorded by the police and in fact it is seen that the FIR was lodged on the basis of the complaint of Monika Chaudhary and she stated that her statement was recorded by the police on the next day in the hospital. Both stated that they were never taken to the site of the accident and denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of Ravinder Chaudhary.
19. It is seen that PW Ravinder Chaudhary reiterated that the offending vehicle suddenly came on his side and hit his vehicle from the front side. PW1 Ravinder Chaudhary also stated that the accident took place near the Air Force area and the place was well lighted at the time of the accident and Monika Chaudhary also stated to that effect. Ravinder Chaudhary stated that he had seen the offending vehicle when it was at a distance of about 50 meters. He also stated that there was no divider or yellow line on the road where the accident took place. A perusal of the site plan also shows that the accident had occurred on the side of the road going towards Pinto Park in which direction the petitioners were going and it shows that the offending vehicle had come on the wrong side and hit the car of the petitioners. No Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 19 of 47 doubt the petitioners had themselves stated that the area was well lighted and Ravinder Chaudhary had also stated that he had seen the offending vehicle when it was at a distance of about 50 meters but there is nothing to dispute that the offending truck had come on the side of the petitioners and hit their car. The mechanical inspection report in respect of the offending vehicle shows damage to the front right side body and the driver's window, to the front bumper and jali and the right side headlight and indicator were broken. The mechanical inspection report of the Wagon R car in which the petitioners were travelling shows complete damage to the front right side, to the right side body and both windows and the glass of the front window was broken and there was other damage to the front right side.
20. In the instant case the driver of the offending vehicle had already expired and no evidence has been led on behalf of the respondents. Further the criminal record has been placed on record which shows that the driver of the offending vehicle had been charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 279/338A IPC though he had expired on 4.1.2013. In Basant Kaur and others v. Chattar Pal Singh and others 2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB) it was observed that registration of criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle was enough to record a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident. No evidence has been adduced by the respondent No.1 to prove any other version of the accident and there is no evidence from the respondent No.1 to disprove the particulars of the Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 20 of 47 accident or the involvement of vehicle No.DL1LM0958. The fact that the charge sheet was against the respondent No.1 was also not disputed. In view of the testimony of the petitioners and the documents on record which have remained unrebutted, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle has been prima facie proved.
21. It was stated that due to the huge impact of the accident the injured/petitioners sustained multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body. It was averred that from the place of the accident the injured/petitioners were removed to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt where the doctors on duty prepared their MLC. The MLCs are on record which show the injuries sustained by the petitioners and the injuries were opined to be dangerous in nature in respect of both the petitioners. Thus it stands established that the petitioners had sustained injuries in the accident. The issue No.1 is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
22. Since issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioners, they would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicle 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 Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 21 of 47 during the period of treatment (2) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (3) expenses incurred on treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food etc. In addition, the injured is further entitled to nonpecuniary damages/general damages which include (1) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries and (2) loss of expectation of life.
COMPENSATION IN SUIT No.337/14 MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT
23. It is the case of the petitioner Ravinder Chaudhary that due to the impact of the accident on 17.11.2012 he sustained multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body resulting in Head injury, Fracture both transverse process C7, Fracture 2nd, 3rd and 4th right ribs, fracture 1st left rib, blow out fracture lamins papyraces of Rt Orbit, loss of two upper central incisors with fracture lower two incisors, B/L hemorrhagic contusion lung Rt > Lt, Deep cut on upper lip and other multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body. It was averred that from the place of accident the injured/petitioner was removed to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, where the doctors on duty prepared his MLC. It was averred that he remained as an indoor patient from 17.11.2012 to 29.11.2012 and was discharged from the hospital with the advice to attend the hospital regularly and to take rich and high protein diet for early Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 22 of 47 recovery. It was averred that he was further advised for complete bed rest and the treatment of the injured/petitioner was still continuing and till date Rs. 20,000/ had been incurred on medical expenses. It was averred that he had not totally recovered from the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It was averred that he had spent a huge amount on medicines and treatment, conveyance, rich and high protein diet and attendant. It was averred that he had become a permanent disabled person and he would be requiring a plastic surgery on upper lip which would cost heavily. It was averred that in the accident the injured/petitioner had lost his two front upper teeth and fractured two lower incisors and he would have to spend a lot of money on his artificial teeth implantation throughout his life. It was averred that the petitioner visited the hospital on 26.12.2012 for follow up and his condition was not stable so he was again admitted in Base Hospital from 26.11.2012 to 02.01.2013. On 2.1.2013 he was shifted to 4 Air Force Hospital, Kalai Kunda, Kharkpur, West Bengal for medical down gradation board and was discharged on 05.01.2013. It was averred that the injured/petitioner had not totally recovered from the injuries and would be requiring medical assistance throughout his life. It was averred that he would have to spend a lot of money on his future treatment and for plastic surgery of his upper lip. It was averred that the injured had suffered great financial losses because of the accident towards his treatment and medicine, conveyance, rich and high protein diet, attendant and loss of job. PW1 Ravinder Chaudhary in paras 4 to 7 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect.
Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 23 of 47
24. PW1 stated that after the accident he and his wife both became unconscious. He stated that the doctors had told him that his upper teeth bone had been damaged therefore firstly they had to do bone grafting and thereafter artificial teeth implantation could be done and the whole process would take approximately one year. He stated that the doctors had put him in A4G4 category temporary for 6 months which was the lowest medical category in their department. He stated that he had not totally recovered from the injuries and would be requiring medical assistance throughout his life. He stated that in the month of May, 2013 he was again admitted at 4 Air Force Hospital, Kalai Kunda, Kharkpur, West Bengal from 27.5.2013 to 28.5.2013 and the doctors had again put him in A4G4 category again for 6 months which was the lowest medical category in their department. He stated that in the month of November, 2013 he was declared fit by medical board and they gave him A4G1 category. He stated that after the accident he was not in a position to move from one place to another and needed help for his daily routine work. He stated that he had spent more than Rs.8,000/ on his medicine and treatment. He stated that most of his medicines had been provided by Base Hospital. However, some of the medicines had been purchased by him from outside but the bills had been misplaced and some were not obtained. He stated that he had not recovered from the injuries and still felt pain in his injuries and he could not do his daily need works. He stated that he found difficulty in doing many works which he used to do easily prior to the accident. Discharge summaries are Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/2, copy of movement order is Ex.PW1/3, Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 24 of 47 copy of medical board proceedings is Ex.PW1/4, summary and opinion sheet are Ex.PW1/5, classification medical board instruction is Ex.PW1/6 and the OPD card issued from Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. regarding future course of treatment for teeth implantation and bone grafting is Ex.PW1/7.
25. The MLC shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the injuries were opined to be dangerous in nature. The documents placed on record by the petitioner show that he had sustained Fracture both transverse process C7 vertebra, Fracture 2nd, 3rd and 4th right ribs, fracture posterior aspect of 1st left rib, contusion Rt lung with haemothorax and avulsion of upper central incisors with fracture lower two incisors. They also show that the petitioner remained admitted in hospital for various periods. Thus the injuries were serious in nature. Further the petitioner was granted sick leave. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had sustained any disability in the accident. The documents placed on record by the petitioner show that he was put in low medical category P4(T4) and thereafter was recommended medical category A4 G4 (T24). However he had himself deposed that in November, 2013 he was declared fit by medical board and given A4G1 category. Thus there is nothing to show that the petitioner had sustained any permanent disability due to the accident.
26. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 PW1 Shri Ravinder Chaudhary admitted that he had placed all the Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 25 of 47 treatment documents and medical bills available with him on record. He stated that his dental treatment was still continuing and it would take another one year. He admitted that he had taken his complete treatment from Department Hospital. He admitted that he had not filed bills to show that he incurred Rs. 30,000/ on conveyance, Rs.8,000/ on his medicines and Rs.250 per day on special diet for about 6 months. He denied the suggestion that the medical papers filed by him were not related to the injuries sustained in the accident. He denied the suggestion that the averments made by him in the affidavit were false or that the documents filed by him were forged and fabricated. Thus PW1 stated that his dental treatment was still continuing and it would take another one year. He admitted that he had taken his complete treatment from Department Hospital and that he had not filed bills to show that he incurred Rs.8,000/ on his medicines. In the claim petition it was stated that the petitioner had incurred Rs.20,000/ on medical expenses while in the evidence by way of affidavit it was stated that the petitioner had spent Rs.8,000/ on his medicines. However he had not filed bills to show the said expenses and had stated that the bills had been misplaced or were not taken. It is pertinent that he had also admitted that he had taken his complete treatment from the Department Hospital. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident and he had undergone treatment for the same. Though the petitioner had taken treatment from the Department Hospital but he would have spent some amount on medicines and medical treatment. The petitioner would have incurred some expenditure on treatment even subsequently. He Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 26 of 47 had also stated that his dental treatment was still continuing and OPD card issued from Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. regarding future course of treatment for teeth implantation and bone grafting is Ex.PW1/7. However the same does not mention that the petitioner would be required to incur any expenses towards the procedure to be done. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs.Five Thousand only) is awarded towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
27. 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 less 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."Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 27 of 47
The case of the petitioner is that due to the impact of the accident on 17.11.2012 he sustained multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body resulting in Head injury, Fracture both transverse process C7, Fracture 2nd, 3rd and 4th right ribs, fracture 1st left rib, blow out fracture lamins papyraces of Rt Orbit, loss of two upper central incisors with fracture lower two incisors, B/L hemorrhagic contusion lung Rt > Lt, Deep cut on upper lip and other multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body. From the place of accident the injured/petitioner was removed to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi and he remained as an indoor patient from 17.11.2012 to 29.11.2012 and was discharged from the hospital with the advice to attend the hospital regularly. He was further advised for complete bed rest and the treatment of the injured/petitioner was still continuing. It was averred that he had not totally recovered from the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It was averred that he had become a permanent disabled person and he would be requiring a plastic surgery on upper lip which would cost heavily as also artificial teeth implantation. It was averred that the petitioner visited the hospital on 26.12.2012 for follow up and his condition was not stable so he was again admitted in Base Hospital from 26.11.2012 to 02.01.2013. On 2.1.2013 he was shifted to 4 Air Force Hospital, Kalai Kunda, Kharkpur, West Bengal for medical down gradation board and was discharged on 05.01.2013. It was averred that the injured/petitioner had not totally recovered from the injuries and would be requiring medical assistance throughout his life. It was averred that he had suffered losses towards loss of social life and enjoyment, Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 28 of 47 loss of inconvenience and hardship, loss towards pain and suffering and general damages. PW1 stated that the doctors had put him in A4G4 category temporary for 6 months which was the lowest medical category in their department. He stated that in the month of May, 2013 he was again admitted at 4 Air Force Hospital, Kalai Kunda, Kharkpur, West Bengal from 27.5.2013 to 28.5.2013 and the doctors had again put him in A4G4 category again for 6 months which was the lowest medical category in their department. He stated that in the month of November, 2013 he was declared fit by medical board and they gave him A4G1 category. He stated that after the accident he was not in a position to move from one place to another and needed help for his daily routine work. He stated that he had not recovered from the injuries and still felt pain in his injuries and he could not do his daily need works. He stated that he found difficulty in doing many works which he used to do easily prior to the accident. He stated that due to the accident his entire life had changed. His life had been shattered. He stated that not only he but his entire family had suffered the losses also. He stated that because of the accident he was facing lot of difficulties in doing his daily routine work and he was suffering lot of inconvenience and hardship.
28. The MLC shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the injuries were opined to be dangerous in nature. The documents placed on record by the petitioner show that he had sustained Fracture both transverse process C7 vertebra, Fracture 2nd, 3rd and 4th right ribs, fracture posterior Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 29 of 47 aspect of 1st left rib, contusion Rt lung with haemothorax and avulsion of upper central incisors with fracture lower two incisors. They also show that the petitioner remained admitted in hospital for various periods. Thus the injuries were serious in nature. Further the petitioner was granted sick leave. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had sustained any disability in the accident though he was placed in low medical category P4(T4) and thereafter was recommended medical category A4 G4 (T24) for sometime. Looking at the nature of injuries and extent of treatment and that the accident pertains to the year 2012, the petitioner is awarded Rs.30,000/ (Rs.Thirty Thousand only) for pain and suffering.
29. It was stated that the petitioner was 40 years of age and it was so stated in the claim petition. The pay slip of the petitioner is Ex.PW1/8 which shows his date of birth to be 15.5.1972. As such he would have been more than 40 years on the date of the accident i.e. 17.11.2012. Notice can be taken of the fact that on account of injuries sustained by him the petitioner may not have been able to perform his day to day duties towards his family and on account of the injuries suffered by him the petitioner may not have been able to enjoy the amenities of life. In the circumstances the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/ (Rs.Twenty Thousand Only) for loss of amenities of life. However the petitioner would not be entitled to any amount towards disfiguration or loss of expectation of life.
Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 30 of 47 CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
30. In para 4 of the affidavit Ex.PW1/A the petitioner had stated that he had spent huge amount on medicines and treatment, conveyance, rich and high protein diet and attendant. He stated that he had spent more than Rs.30,000/ on conveyance. He also stated that his car was totally damaged in the accident so he was using private transportation for his movements which was very costly. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 PW1 Shri Ravinder Chaudhary admitted that he had not filed bills to show that he incurred Rs.30,000/ on conveyance, Rs.8,000/ on his medicines and Rs.250/ per day on special diet for about 6 months. 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 Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt and after discharge from the hospital he would have hired the services of private conveyance as he would not have been able to drive of his own or to use public conveyance and would have spent amount on conveyance for going for his treatment. In the circumstances a sum of Rs.10,000/ (Rs.Ten Thousand Only) would be just and proper towards conveyance charges.
31. In para 4 of the affidavit Ex.PW1/A the petitioner had stated that he remained as indoor patient from 17.11.2012 to 29.11.2012 and was discharged from the hospital with the advice to attend the hospital regularly and to take Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 31 of 47 rich and high protein diet for early recovery. He stated that he had spent huge amount on medicines and treatment, conveyance, rich and high protein diet and attendant. He stated that he had spent more than Rs.250/ per day on special diet for more than 6 months on the advice of doctors. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 PW1 Shri Ravinder Chaudhary admitted that he had not filed bills to show that he incurred Rs.30,000/ on conveyance, Rs.8,000/ on his medicines and Rs. 250/ per day on special diet for about 6 months. 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 petitioner might have taken diet rich in protein, vitamins and minerals for speedier recovery. In the circumstances the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs.Five Thousand Only) for special diet.
32. In para 4 of the affidavit Ex.PW1/A the petitioner had stated that he had engaged an attendant for 3 months to look after him for his daily routine work. He stated that he had spent huge amount on medicines and treatment, conveyance, rich and high protein diet and attendant. He stated that after the accident he was not in a position to move from one place to another and needed help for his daily routine work. He stated that he had engaged an attendant for 3 months at a salary of Rs.6,000/ per month. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 PW1 Shri Ravinder Chaudhary admitted that he had not filed any document to show that Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 32 of 47 he had engaged an attendant for 3 months for a salary of Rs.6,000/ per month. Although the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that he incurred any expenses towards attendant charges but looking to the nature of injuries the petitioner would have incurred some expenditure on attendant charges and a sum of Rs.9000/ is awarded towards attendant charges. LOSS OF INCOME
33. It is the case of the petitioner that he is aged 40 years and working as Wing Commander in Indian Air Force and was posted as a commanding officer in Bhubaneshwar. He was drawing a salary of Rs.91,264/ per month. It was averred that because of the accident he was not able to attend his duties for long time and thus suffered great financial loss. PW1 stated that the doctors had put him in A4G4 category temporary for 6 months which was the lowest medical category in their department. He stated that he had not totally recovered from the injuries and would be requiring medical assistance throughout his life. He stated that in the month of May, 2013 he was again admitted at 4 Air Force Hospital, Kalai Kunda, Kharkpur, West Bengal from 27.5.2013 to 28.5.2013 and the doctors had again put him in A4G4 category again for 6 months which was the lowest medical category in their department. He stated that in the month of November, 2013 he was declared fit by medical board and they gave him A4G1 category. He stated that due to the accident his entire life had changed. His life had been shattered. He stated that Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 33 of 47 because of the accident he was facing lot of difficulties in doing his daily routine work and he was suffering lot of inconvenience and hardship. He stated that he had not recovered from the injuries and still felt pain in his injuries and he could not do his daily need works. He stated that he found difficulty in doing many works which he used to do easily prior to the accident. PW1 in paras 5 to 9 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. Copy of salary slip is Ex.PW1/8. He was not crossexamined on behalf of the respondent No.1.
34. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 PW1 Shri Ravinder Chaudhary stated that at the time of the accident he was posted at 9 Airman Selection Center as Commanding Officer. He stated that he was getting approximately Rs.91,250/ p.m. at the time of the accident. He stated that he was still posted at the same office till date at the same designation and at present he was getting Rs.1,04,000/ p.m. He stated that he had placed on record his salary slip for the month of January, 2013. He stated that he had availed 28 days sick leave against the annual leave as there was no sick leave in his department. He had not brought the salary slip for the month of November, 2012 and December, 2012. He denied the suggestion that he had not suffered any loss of income due to the accident. Thus PW1 Shri Ravinder Chaudhary stated that he was getting approximately Rs.91,250/ p.m. at the time of the accident and the pay slip for the month of January, 2013 which is on record also shows the same though he had not brought the salary Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 34 of 47 slip for the month of November, 2012 and December, 2012 while the accident had taken place on 17.11.2012. He stated that he was still posted at the same office till date at the same designation and at present he was getting Rs. 1,04,000/ p.m. Thus the petitioner was still working on the same designation. A perusal of the salary slip shows that Rs.6500/ has been included towards allowances which is liable to be excluded from the salary. Further a deduction of Rs.7,663/ is also shown towards income tax which would also be liable to be deducted.
35. The petitioner had stated that he was advised bed rest and that his treatment was still continuing. He had also stated that he remained admitted in hospital from 17.11.2012 to 29.11.2012, from 26.12.2012 to 2.1.2013 and from 27.5.2013 to 28.5.2013. During crossexamination PW1 stated that he had availed 28 days sick leave against the annual leave as there was no sick leave in his department. The documents placed on record by him show that he was granted sick leave for 4 weeks with effect from 29.11.2012 though there is nothing on record to show that he had to avail leave for any longer period. While the said leave is not encashable but the petitioner would be entitled to some amount towards the leaves availed by him and as such an amount of Rs.70,000/ is awarded towards loss of income.
36. The petitioner has also not proved that he acquired any disability on account of the accident or that he was likely to suffer future loss of income on Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 35 of 47 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. PW1 had stated that the doctors had put him in A4G4 category temporary for 6 months which was the lowest medical category in their department and in the month of May, 2013 the doctors had again put him in A4G4 category again for 6 months. He stated that in the month of November, 2013 he was declared fit by medical board and they gave him A4G1 category. During crossexamination he stated that he was still posted at the same office till date at the same designation and at present he was getting Rs.1,04,000/ p.m. During examination by the Tribunal the petitioner had stated that he was 41 years old. At the time of the accident, he was working as Commanding Officer and at present also he was working at the same place. He also stated that he did not suffer any permanent disability. Thus the petitioner had himself stated that he did not suffer any permanent disability and he has also not shown what loss was caused to him by being placed in a lower category for one year. Accordingly he cannot be held entitled to any amount towards loss of future prospects or income.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
Medicines and Medical treatment Rs.5,000/
Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/
Loss of Amenities of life Rs.20,000/
Conveyance Rs.10,000/
Special Diet Rs.5,000/
Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 36 of 47
Attendant charges Rs.9,000/
Loss of Income Rs.70,000/
TOTAL Rs.1,49,000/
COMPENSATION IN SUIT No.336/14
MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT
37. It is the case of the petitioner Monika Chaudhary that due to the impact of the accident on 17.11.2012 she sustained multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body resulting in Head injury, Fracture Nasal Bridge, wound at upper lip, abrasion superficial and other multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body. It was averred that from the place of the accident, the injured/petitioner was removed to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi, where the doctors on duty prepared her MLC. She remained as an indoor patient from 18.11.2012 to 19.11.2012 and was discharged from the hospital with the advice to attend the hospital regularly and to take rich and high protein diet for early recovery. It was averred that she was further advised for complete bed rest. It was averred that the treatment of the injured/petitioner was still continuing and till date Rs.15,000/ had been incurred on medical expenses. It was averred that she had not totally recovered from the injuries sustained by her in the accident. She had spent a huge amount on medicines and treatment, conveyance, rich and high protein diet and attendant. It was Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 37 of 47 averred that she had become a permanent disabled person. It was averred that the injured/petitioner had suffered great financial losses because of the accident towards her treatment and medicine, conveyance, rich and high protein diet, attendant and loss of job. PW Monika Chaudhary in paras 4 to 6 of her affidavit had deposed to that effect.
38. PW Monika Chaudhary stated that her treatment continued for more than 4 months. She stated that she had not totally recovered from the injuries sustained by her in the accident. She stated that she had spent huge amount on medicines and treatment, conveyance, rich and high protein diet and attendant. She stated that in the accident she and her husband both were seriously injured and there was no one to look after both of them and their two minor children. She stated that due to the accident her entire life had changed. Her life had been shattered. She stated that because of the accident she was facing lot of difficulties in doing her daily routine work and was suffering a lot of inconvenience and hardship. Copy of discharge summary is Ex.PW1/1. She was not crossexamined on behalf of the respondent No.1. The MLC shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the injuries were opined to be dangerous in nature. The documents placed on record by the petitioner show that she had sustained Fracture B/L Nasal Bone. They also show that the petitioner remained admitted in hospital from 18.11.2012 to 19.11.2012. Thus the injuries were serious in nature. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had sustained any disability in the accident. Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 38 of 47
39. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 PW Monika Chaudhary admitted that she had placed on record all the treatment documents and medical bills available with her on record. She admitted that she had not filed documents to show that she was under
treatment for 4 months. She admitted that she had taken her complete treatment from Base Hospital. She admitted that she had not filed any bills to show that she had spent huge amount on medicines, treatment, conveyance and special diet as stated by her in para 4 of her affidavit. She denied the suggestion that the medical papers filed by her were not related to the injuries sustained in the accident. She denied the suggestion that the averments made by her in the affidavit were false or that the documents filed by her were forged and fabricated. Thus there is nothing to show that the petitioner had sustained any permanent disability due to the accident. There is also nothing to show that she was advised bed rest for any period. Monika Chaudhary admitted that she had not filed documents to show that she was under treatment for 4 months. She admitted that she had taken her complete treatment from Base Hospital and that she had not filed any bills to show that she had spent huge amount on medicines and treatment as stated by her in para 4 of her affidavit.
In the claim petition it was stated that the petitioner had incurred Rs.15,000/ on medical expenses while in the evidence by way of affidavit no amount was stated. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident and she had undergone treatment for the same. Though the petitioner had taken treatment from the Department Hospital but she would Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 39 of 47 have spent some amount on medicines and medical treatment. The petitioner would have incurred some expenditure on treatment even subsequently.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.3,000/ (Rs.Three Thousand only) is awarded towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
40. The case of the petitioner is that due to the impact of the accident on 17.11.2012 she sustained multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body resulting in Head injury, Fracture Nasal Bridge, wound at upper lip, abrasion superficial and other multiple grievous injuries on the whole part of the body. It was averred that from the place of the accident, the injured/petitioner was removed to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi, where the doctors on duty prepared her MLC. She remained as an indoor patient from 18.11.2012 to 19.11.2012 and was discharged from the hospital with the advice to attend the hospital regularly and to take rich and high protein diet for early recovery. It was averred that she was further advised for complete bed rest. It was averred that the treatment of the injured/petitioner was still continuing and she had not totally recovered from the injuries sustained by her in the accident. It was averred that she had become a permanent disabled person. It was averred that she had also suffered losses towards loss of social life and enjoyment, loss of inconvenience and hardship, loss towards pain and suffering and general damages. PW Monika Chaudhary Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 40 of 47 stated that her treatment continued for more than 4 months. She stated that she had not totally recovered from the injuries sustained by her in the accident. She stated that due to the accident her entire life had changed. Her life had been shattered. She stated that because of the accident she was facing lot of difficulties in doing her daily routine work and was suffering a lot of inconvenience and hardship. Copy of discharge summary is Ex.PW1/1. She was not crossexamined on behalf of the respondent No.1. The MLC shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the injuries were opined to be dangerous in nature. The documents placed on record by the petitioner show that she had sustained Fracture B/L Nasal Bone. They also show that the petitioner remained admitted in hospital from 18.11.2012 to 19.11.2012. Thus the injuries were serious in nature. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had sustained any disability in the accident. Looking at the nature of injuries and extent of treatment and that the accident pertains to the year 2012, the petitioner is awarded Rs.20,000/ (Rs.Twenty Thousand only) for pain and suffering.
41. It was stated that the petitioner was 32 years of age and it was so stated in the claim petition. The copy of the PAN card of the petitioner is Ex.PW1/2 which shows her date of birth to be 04.9.1980. As such she would have been more than 32 years on the date of the accident i.e. 17.11.2012. Notice can be taken of the fact that on account of the injuries sustained by her the petitioner may not have been able to perform her day to day duties towards Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 41 of 47 his family and on account of the injuries suffered by her 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. However the petitioner would not be entitled to any amount towards disfiguration or loss of expectation of life.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
42. In para 4 of the affidavit the petitioner had stated that she had spent huge amount on medicines and treatment, conveyance, rich and high protein diet and attendant. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 PW Monika Chaudhary admitted that she had not filed any bills to show that she had spent huge amount on medicines, treatment, conveyance and special diet as stated by her in para 4 of her affidavit. 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 Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt and after discharge from the hospital she would have hired the services of private conveyance as she would not have been able to drive of her own or to use public conveyance and would have spent amount on conveyance for going for her treatment. In the circumstances a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs.Five Thousand Only) would be just and proper towards conveyance charges. Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 42 of 47
43. In para 4 of the affidavit the petitioner had stated that she remained as an indoor patient from 18.11.2012 to 19.11.2012 and was discharged from the hospital with the advice to attend the hospital regularly and to take rich and high protein diet for early recovery. She stated that she had spent huge amount on medicines and treatment, conveyance, rich and high protein diet and attendant. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 PW Monika Chaudhary admitted that she had not filed any bills to show that she had spent huge amount on medicines, treatment, conveyance and special diet as stated by her in para 4 of her affidavit. Although the petitioner has not proved that she was advised special diet but looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner notice can be taken of the fact that 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.
44. In para 4 of the affidavit the petitioner had stated that she had spent huge amount on medicines and treatment, conveyance, rich and high protein diet and attendant. She stated that in the accident she and her husband were both seriously injured and there was no one to look after both of them and their two minor children. Therefore they had to engage a maid servant to do all the household work and to take care of her minor children for three months. She stated that they used to pay her a salary of Rs.10,000/ per month. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 PW Monika Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 43 of 47 Chaudhary admitted that she had not filed any document to show that she had engaged an attendant for 3 months for a salary of 10,000/ per month. Although the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that she incurred any expenses towards attendant charges but looking to the nature of injuries the petitioner would have incurred some expenditure on attendant charges and a sum of Rs.9000/ is awarded towards attendant charges. LOSS OF INCOME
45. It is the case of the petitioner that she was 32 years of age at the time of the accident. She stated that she was a housewife at the time of the accident and she used to do all the household work and take care of her family. The petitioner in para 5 of her affidavit had deposed to that effect. Copy of PAN card is Ex.PW1/2 and copy of degree of MSc. is Mark A. She was not crossexamined on behalf of the respondent No.1 or on the aspect of loss of income on behalf of the respondent No.2. The petitioner had stated that she was advised complete bed rest and that her treatment continued for more than 4 months. She had also stated that she remained admitted in hospital from 18.11.2012 to 19.11.2012. However there is nothing to show till when her treatment continued or that she was advised bed rest for 4 months or for any period and in fact during crossexamination the petitioner had admitted that she had not filed documents to show that she was under treatment for 4 months. Notice can however be taken of the fact that on account of the injuries Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 44 of 47 sustained by the petitioner she may not have been able to perform her avocation for some period. Accordingly a sum of Rs.20,000/ is granted towards loss of income including for the period for which she may not have been able to work.
46. The petitioner has also not proved that she acquired any disability on account of the accident or that she was likely to suffer future loss of income on account of the injuries sustained in the accident and that the injuries would reduce her efficiency to work and thereby she would suffer loss of future income. During examination by the Tribunal the petitioner had stated that she was 33 years old. At the time of the accident, she was not working and even at present she was not working. The petitioner has not shown what loss was caused to her on account of the accident towards future prospects. Accordingly she cannot be held entitled to any amount towards loss of future prospects or income.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
Medicines and Medical treatment Rs.3,000/
Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/
Loss of Amenities of life Rs.15,000/
Conveyance Rs.5,000/
Special Diet Rs.3,000/
Attendant charges Rs.9,000/
Loss of Income Rs.20,000/
TOTAL Rs.75,000/
Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 45 of 47
RELIEF
47. The petitioner Ravinder Chaudhary in suit No.337/14 is awarded a sum of Rs.1,49,000/ (Rs.One Lakh Forty Nine Thousand only) and the petitioner Monika Chaudhary in suit No.336/14 is awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/ (Rs.Seventy Five Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization, including, interim award, if any already passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. The entire amount be released to the petitioners. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount by way of separate crossed cheques/ demand drafts 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 petitioners shall file their complete address as well as address of their counsel for sending the notice of deposit of the award amount.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
48. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.2 being the insurer are held jointly and severally liable (the driver of the offending vehicle had already expired). No evidence has been led by the respondent No.2 to show any breach of terms and conditions of the policy by the respondent No.1 and in fact the IO had filed the verification report of the DL and the RC of the offending vehicle with the DAR. The respondent Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 46 of 47 No.2 being the insurer - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization. The respondent No.2 shall deposit the award amount in the court by way of crossed cheques/ demand drafts within 30 days of the passing of the award failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
49. Nazir to report in case the cheques are 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.2 shall deposit the award amount along with interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimants with a copy to their 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 23.12.2014.
Attested copy of the award be given to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
on this 9th day of October, 2014 (GEETANJLI GOEL)
PO: MACT2
New Delhi
Suit No. 337/14 & 336/14 Page No. 47 of 47