Delhi District Court
Also At:H. No. 4 vs Sh. Nikunj Verma on 26 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH BHATT, PO,MACT(NORTH)/ TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
INJURY CASE
Suit No.:469/11
Unique ID no.:02401C0459002011
Sh. Vipul Garg
S/o Late Sh. Jai Bhagwan Garg
R/o D3, C.C. Colony,
Delhi
Also at:H. No. 40, First Floor,
Priya Darshani Vihar,
PartII, Delhi ..........Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Nikunj Verma
S/o Sh. Virender Verma
R/o C4, Rana Partap Bagh,
Delhi
2. Sh. Salil Sehgal
R/o 16, Kailash Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi ..........Respondents
Suit no.:469/11 Page 1/10
Date of Institution : 28/09/2011
Date on which order was reserved : 25/02/2013
Date of Decision : 26/02/2013
APPLICATION U/s 166 & 140 OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT 1988 FOR GRANT OF
COMPENSATION
JUDGMENT/AWARD:
1. This is a case for claim of compensation on account of injuries suffered by the petitioner in the road traffic accident dated 13/06/2011 caused within the jurisdiction of PS Maurice Nagar, Delhi.
2. Petitioner's case is that on the day of accident while travelling on his Scooter at Guru Teg Bahadur Road, in front of Art Faculty, Delhi University, Delhi was hit by Car no. DL 8CH 3788 (offending vehicle) driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner causing grievous injuries. Petitioner was taken to hospital where FIR was lodged and MLC was prepared.
3. Respondent no. 1 is the driver, respondent no. 2 the owner and respondent no. 3 the insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. Respondent no. 1 has denied his negligence in the accident in question and stated that petitioner suffered injuries due to his own negligence.
5. Respondent no. 2 has stated that he had sold the offending vehicle to one Sh. Shaminder before the accident in question. But did not deny that registration certificate was continuing in his name.
Suit no.:469/11 Page 2/10
6. Respondent no. 3 has admitted the insurance policy and offered a sum of Rs. 50,000/.
7. Detailed Accident Report alongwith copy of FIR, site plan, MLC, driving license, RC, copy of seizure memo, mechanical inspection report, photocopy of photograph of vehicle of petitioner at the site of accident and insurance policy have been filed on record.
8. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed for consideration:
1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road traffic accident dated 13/06/2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 8CH 3788 driven by respondent no. 1 as alleged?
2. What amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?
3. Relief.
Issue wise findings:
9. Issue no. 1: PW1 has reiterated the stand of petition and stated that on 13/06/2011 at about 08:10 a.m. while travelling on Scooter at Guru Teg Bahadur road, in front of Arts Faculty, Delhi University, Delhi was hit by the offending vehicle driven by respondent no. 1 from wrong side and in rash and negligent manner causing grievous injuries. Petitioner was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital where FIR was lodged and MLC was prepared. In crossexamination Suit no.:469/11 Page 3/10 admitted that he was not wearing helmet on the date of accident in question but denied that the accident in question was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.
1. Respondent no. 1 had denied his negligence in the accident in question but has not led any evidence. No other evidence has been led by any of the parties.
As per FIR a case U/s 279/337 IPC for the accident in question had been registered against respondent no. 1. As per site plan, the accident in question was caused at point 'A' opposite Art Faculty, Delhi University, PS Maurice Nagar, Delhi. As per MLC, an unknown person had been brought by respondent no. 1 to the hospital with injuries suffered in the alleged road traffic accident. As per mechanical inspection reports, both the offending vehicle and Scooter of petitioner had fresh damaged parts on their front. Photocopy of photographs of the Scooter of the petitioner after the accident at the site has also been filed on record.
In view of the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and documents available on record, it is prima facie proved that petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
10. Issue no. 2: In view of the findings of issue no. 1, petitioner is entitled to compensation. Petitioner has stated that he had suffered multiple fractures on face, maxilla, femur bone, was initially treated at Hindu Rao Hospital thereafter, at Sant Parmanand Hospital then at Vedanta Hospital, spent more than Rs. 17 lakh on treatment, Rs. 1 lakh each on conveyance & special diet, was reimbursed Rs. 1,50,000/ under the medi claim policy, Suit no.:469/11 Page 4/10 would require Rs. 2,50,000/ as future treatment expenses, was earning Rs. 17,000/ p.m. and spent Rs. 8,000/ p.m. as attendant charges.
As per MLC, petitioner was suffering from bleeding from mouth & nose, had wounds over eye, face, forearm, other part of body, mandible fracture and fracture of right thigh, was referred to surgery, dental, ENT, opthalimic, ortho department. Petitioner was initially admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital thereafter, in Sant Parmanand Hospital. As per treatment record of Sant Parmanand Hospital petitioner was admitted on 13/06/2011 for treatment of multiple lacerations on face, fracture of facial bone and right femur ; ORIF plate fixation of femur bone and repair of right pinna was carried out and with advice of review was discharged on 25/06/2011. Petitioner was thereafter, admitted at Vedanta Hospital on 25/06/2011 for treatment of left hip fracture, severe head injury, ventriculitis and septicemia ; CT Scan of brain was carried out which revealed fracture of lateral wall of left orbit, multiple skull base fracture with fracture lateral wall of nose, multiple nasal bone fractures but with normal brain parenchyma and prominent ventricles ; pus was drained from right ventricle ; investigation showed that infection was resolving ; right ventriculoperitoneal shunt was applied ; with improvement, valve pressure was decreased ; with advice of normal diet, rest for 02 weeks, medicines, follow up was discharged on 23/07/2011. On 28/07/2011 petitioner was noted to be irritable but wounds were healthy ; sutures were removed and review was advised. As per certificate dated 22/11/2011 petitioner was advised multiple staged surgical reconstructive procedure for which approximate future expenditure of Rs. 2 lakhs was estimated. There is no further treatment record.
As per report of Medical Board of Hindu Rao Hospital petitioner was a case of Suit no.:469/11 Page 5/10 fracture facial bone, fracture intratrochanteric femur left head injury with contusion left temporal and basal ganglionic region with intraventricular bleed and was operated at Parmanand Hospital in the form of right ventriculo peritoneal shunt. Petitioner was having mild stiffness of left hip joint specially external rotation with shortening of ¾ and was complaining of episodic memory impairement and mild slurring of speech. Neurological examination was grossely normal except mild slurred speech. Eye and dental check up were within limit but in view of head injury with CT Scan head findings petitioner was required to be evaluated on regular basis with neurosurgery department and clinical phychology department. Petitioner was thereafter, evaluated at G.B. Pant Hospital but neurosurgical assessment was required therefore, was referred to IHBAS. As per report of IHBAS, petitioner required CT Brain and assessment by eye surgeon, dental assessment and was referred to Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences and Guru Nanak Eye Centre. As per report of Guru Nanak Eye Centre, petitioner was suffering 20% disability of eye but no vision restriction was noted.
Petitioner is therefore, entitled to following compensation:
1. Medical expenses : Petitioner has claimed to have spent Rs. 17 lakhs but has filed bills for an amount of Rs. 13,86,529.49/ only. It is stated by petitioner that he had been reimbursed Rs. 1,50,000/ as medi claim. Accordingly, only an amount of Rs. 12,36,528.49/ (after deducting medi claim amount) being connected with the treatment of the injuries received in the accident in question rounded to Rs. 12,36,600/ are allowed.
Suit no.:469/11 Page 6/10
2. Future treatment expenses : Petitioner has stated that he required Rs. 2,50,000/ as future treatment charges and has filed on record Ex. PW1/3 but despite several opportunities did not led any evidence to this effect. However, as per report of Disability Board of Hindu Rao Hospital petitioner required evaluation on regular basis at neurosurgery department and clinical phychology department in higher centre. As per the certificate Ex. PW1/3, petitioner required surgical reconstructive procedures. Previous treatment bills on record suggests that the treatment of petitioner relating to head injury was costly. Thus, presuming that petitioner would require future treatment, a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ is allowed under this head.
3. Special diet and conveyance : No specific evidence in regard to special diet and conveyance has been led. However, bills in regard to conveyance of Rs. 77,100/ has been filed. In view of the nature of injuries which required treatment in various hospitals including treatment at ICU and was under treatment for more than 06 months. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 12,000/ + Rs. 77,100/ = Rs. 89,100/ is allowed under this head.
4. Attendant charges : No specific evidence in regard to attendant has been filed. As per the treatment record, petitioner had suffered severe head injury, was admitted in various hospitals, had to undergo operation of head, had slurring of speech, Suit no.:469/11 Page 7/10 fracture of femur bone. Accordingly, it can easily be presumed that petitioner would have required services of an attendant for at least for the said period of 04 months as claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, attendant charges @ Rs. 5,000/ p.m. for a period of 04 months is allowed. Total Rs. 20,000/.
5. Loss of income : Petitioner has stated that he was running the business of sanitary and hardware goods and earning Rs. 17,000/ p.m. but has not placed on record any document/corroborative evidence to show his business and earning. Accordingly, minimum wages of Rs. 7,826/ p.m. as applicable to a skilled worker on the date of accident in question is taken as the income of the petitioner. The same for a period of 07 months is allowed. Total Rs. 7,826/ X 7 = Rs. 54,782/.
6. Loss due to disability : As per disability certificate, petitioner had suffered disability of 20% of eye though there was no restriction of vision and was also stated to be suffering from temporary disability of slurring of speech, fracture of hip bone. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ is allowed under this head.
7. Pain and suffering : In view of the nature of severe head and other grievous injuries which required treatment for about 07 months in various hospitals, a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ is allowed under this head.
Suit no.:469/11 Page 8/10
8. Loss of amenities of life & loss of expectation of life : In view of the nature of injuries which required treatment in various hospitals and disability of 20% of eye. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 50,000/ under each head is allowed. Total Rs. 1,00,000/.
Total Rs. 12,36,600/ + Rs. 1,00,000/ + Rs. 89,100/ + Rs. 20,000/ + Rs. 54,782/ + Rs. 1,00,000/ + Rs. 2,00,000/ + Rs. 1,00,000/ = Rs. 19,00,482/ (Rupees Nineteen Laky Four Hundred and Eighty Two Only).
11. LIABILITY: There is no dispute in regard to driving license or violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Accordingly, respondent no. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable. Respondent no. 3 to indemnify the claim.
12. Issue no. 3 (RELIEF): While granting relief to the petitioner, interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realization is also allowed on the award.
13. In view of the above, the following award is passed: AWARD : The petition is allowed. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 being the driver and owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
However, respondent no. 3 being the insurance company shall pay the compensation of Rs. 19,00,482/ (Rupees Nineteen Laky Four Hundred and Eighty Two Only) within one month along with the interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realization (excepting for the periods not specifically allowed) to the petitioners. In case of Suit no.:469/11 Page 9/10 default interest @ 12% p.a. will be payable on the award amount from the date of petition.
Compensation amount be deposited with SBI, Tis Hazari alongwith copy of award within one month from today. The entire amount of the petitioner be released on deposit.
13. A compliance report shall be filed by respondent no. 3 about the deposit of the award amount, as per directions alongwith a copy of the notice to the claimant and the counsel for claimant, intimating about the deposit of the cheque by 26/04/2013.
14. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate miscellaneous file containing a copy of the petition, memo of parties, copy of award and last proceeding sheet and put the same alongwith the compliance report aforementioned on 26/04/2013. Copy of the award portion be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (DINESH BHATT)
on 26/02/2013 PO, MACT/Delhi
26/02/2013
Suit no.:469/11 Page 10/10