Delhi District Court
Ram Pal Panchal vs . Salman @ Sonu & Anr. Dar No. 14/15 on 30 May, 2017
Digitally signed by
ANAND ANAND SWAROOP
AGGARWAL
SWAROOP Location: Delhi
Date: 2017.05.30
AGGARWAL 12:53:03 +0530
Ram Pal Panchal Vs. Salman @ Sonu & Anr. DAR No. 14/15
BEFORE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
NORTHEAST DISTT. : KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI
Presiding Officer: ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL: DHJS
Additional District & Sessions Judge: Delhi
DAR No. 14/15 D. D. No. 18A/14
ID No. 14486/15 dated 31.10.2014
P.S. Karawal Nagar
U/s. 279/338 IPC
In the matter of:
Ram Pal Panchal S/o. Sh. Pyare Lal Panchal,
R/o. H. No. 248, Gali No. 7,
Govind Vihar, Delhi - 110094.
Through:
Ms. Pooja Goel, Adv.
( details given in compliance with Clause 27 of
Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure) ....... Claimant
Versus
1. Salman @ Sonu S/o. Sh. Alimuddin 2. Gulzar S/o. Alimuddin
R/o. 130, Gali No.4, Babu Nagar, R/o. 130, Gali No.4, Babu Nagar,
Mustafabad, Delhi 110094 (Being Mustafabad, Delhi - 110094.
minor through his father Sh. Alimuddin as Also at: House No.126 Gali No.9,
Guardian vide order dated 18.05.2017) Near Babu Nagar, Delhi.
(DRIVER OF VEHICLE No. (as per RC)
DL5SAK1041) (OWNER OF VEHICLE No.
DL5SAK1041)
......... Defendants
i) Date of institution of DAR : 06.01.2015
ii) Date when reserved for award : 18.05.2017
iii) Date of award : 30.05.2017
Page No. 1 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI / 30.05.2017
Ram Pal Panchal Vs. Salman @ Sonu & Anr. DAR No. 14/15
DAR ATTRACTING SECTION 166 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
A W A R D
1. BRIEF FACTS.
This DAR pertains to an accident taking place on 27.10.2014 at about 8.30
p.m near Mayur Palace, Mahalaxmi Enclave Road, Delhi within the jurisdiction of
P.S. Karawal Nagar. In the said accident claimant, who was on foot, was hit from his
front side by motorcycle bearing registration no. DL5S AK 1041, which was being
driven by defendant no.1 at a very high speed and negligently. Defendant no.1 was
caught at the spot alongwith motorcycle. Claimant suffered injuries at thumb of his
right hand and on forehead. Claimant was immediately taken to the GTB Hospital,
Delhi by CAT ambulance. Immediately after the accident DD No. 91B dated
27.10.2014 was recorded at P.S. Karawal Nagar and defendant no.1 was apprehended
at the place of accident. Father of defendant no.1 was called at the spot and defendant
no.1 was handed over to his father.
2.1 STAND TAKEN BY DEFENDANTS IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF
DEFENCE SIGNED BY DEFENDANT NO.2.
Salman @ Sonu / defendant no.1 is a minor since his age as per school
certificate is 11 to 12 years and he was sent to Juvenile Justice Board wherein he was
released on bail and his custody was given to his father Alimuddin. Later on
defendant no.1 was released forever from the said case.
The motorcycle in question is owned by Mr. Gulzar / defendant no.2 and same
is not insured. Without telling the defendant no.2 his younger brother Salman @
Sonu took the said motorcycle and drove the same due to which claimant Ram Pal
sustained injuries.
The claimant did not make his statement to the local police on 27.10.2014
Page No. 2 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI / 30.05.2017
Ram Pal Panchal Vs. Salman @ Sonu & Anr. DAR No. 14/15
though police was called on 100 Number. On 01.11.2014 when he was at home he
made statement to the police. Claimant got treatment at GTB Hospital wherein
injuries were simple and lateron said report was sent to expert wherein injuries were
defined as grievous by Dr. Gurvinder Singh. The said injuries are simple and not
grievous because of the fact that on the date of incident claimant did not go to the
hospital for making his statement and getting treatment and after 4 days he went there
for made his statement at his house, thus, it is clear proof of the fact that case is not
for a grievous injury. At last defendants prayed for dismissal of the case since same is
not genuine. Also defendants are prepared to pay Rs.30,000/ as demanded by
claimant.
3. Vide order dated 18.05.2017 it was noted that defendant no.1 is a minor and
his guardian for the purposes of this case had not been appointed till then. Father of
defendant no.1 was present before the court and with the consent of ld. counsel for
defendants Mr. Alimuddin was treated as Guardian of defendant no.1. On the same
day Mr. Devi Sahai, Adv. filed vakalatnama executed by Mr. Alimuddin for and on
behalf of defendant no.1 Salman @ Sonu as his Guardian.
4. ISSUES
Vide order dated 05.08.2015 ld. predecessor of this court framed the following
issues:
(i) Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. DL5SAK 1041 by respondent no.1 on
27.10.2014 at about 8:30 pm at Mahalaxmi Enclave Road near Mayur Palace within the jurisdiction of PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi? OPP.
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and from
whom? OPP
(iii) Relief.
Page No. 3 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI / 30.05.2017
Ram Pal Panchal Vs. Salman @ Sonu & Anr. DAR No. 14/15
5. EVIDENCE
Claimant appeared in the witness box as PW1 Ram Pal Panchal and PE was closed on 12.04.2017 by ld. counsel for claimant. Defendant no.1 appeared in the witness box as R1W1 Salman and DE was closed by ld. counsel for defendants on 17.05.2017.
6. STATEMENT OF CLAIMANT UNDER CLAUSE 26 OF MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE.
On 18.05.2017 statement of claimant under clause 26 of MCTAP was recorded.
7. ARGUMENTS I have heard Ms. Pooja Goel, Adv. for claimant and Mr. Devi Sahai, Adv. for both the defendants. Ld. counsel for defendants relied upon case law reported as The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambhabai and 2 others 1990(3) Current Civil Cases 651. Material available on judicial file perused carefully.
8. My ISSUEWISE findings are as under :
ISSUE NO. 1Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL5SAK 1041 by respondent no.1 on 27.10.2014 at about 8:30 pm at Mahalaxmi Enclave Road near Mayur Palace within the jurisdiction of PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi? OPP.
Here claimant has appeared in the witness box as PW1 Mr. Ram Pal Panchal, who has filed his examinationinchief by way of evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A. In his crossexamination PW1 Ram Pal Panchal has been made to depose as under : Page No. 4 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI / 30.05.2017 Ram Pal Panchal Vs. Salman @ Sonu & Anr. DAR No. 14/15 "xxx by Mr. Devi Sahai, Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 & 2. I got my treatment at GTB Hospital for about 3 months. I have filed on record entire treatment record. I have filed on record documents regarding expenses incurred on treatment. I was not admitted in hospital for the period of three months but I kept on visiting the hospital during the said period of hospital. I was admitting in the hospital on 27.10.2014 and discharged on the same day. My thumb was xray and report is on file. I cannot tell the dimensions of the fracture. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely and no accident took place. Offending Motorcycle number was DL 5S AK 1041. The right side of the motorcycle had hit on my thumb of right hand. I fell down on the road after the accident. The motorcycle was on my right hand side. It was so got written in my statement before the police. I cannot say about exact speed of the motorcycle however, it was at a very high speed. (Vol. Three persons were riding on the motorcycle). I have told about my vol. deposition before the police. Motorcycle was already being driven at a very high speed before the same had hit him. I got up from the road after five minutes by that time motorcyclist trying to ran away from the spot, however, he was caught by the public persons. Key of the motorcycle was given to me and the same remained with me for about 45 days. It is wrong to suggest that police had told me about the number of the motorcycle. It is wrong to suggest that motorcycle no. DL 5SAJK 1041 had caused the accident. I do not know the names of the other persons, who were riding the motorcycle. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. "
Suggestion given in the crossexamination of PW1 Ram Pal Panchal to the effect that no accident took place is contrary to the stand taken by defendants in the WS. In the WS of defendants there is admission regarding happening of accident. Even in his evidence affidavit Ex. R1W1/A there is admission regarding defendant no.1 driving motorcycle no. DL5SAK1041 on 27.10.2014 and the said motorcycle touching the claimant. By making an improvement in the stand taken in the WS, R1W1 Salman in evidence affidavit Ex. R1W1/A has deposed that ".... on 27.10.2014 suddenly Rampal Panchal petitioner came from wrong side and touched the motorcycle but could not fallen on the ground......". Suggestion corresponding to Page No. 5 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI / 30.05.2017 Ram Pal Panchal Vs. Salman @ Sonu & Anr. DAR No. 14/15 these depositions of R1W1 Salman in his evidence affidavit Ex. R1W1/A is not there in the crossexamination of PW1 Ram Pal Panchal. Admittedly defendant no.1 faced enquiry / trial before Juvenile Justice Board regarding the accident in question. Failure to register an FIR against defendant no.1 is immaterial inasmuch as, as per law / rules no FIR is to be registered for the offences u/s. 279/338 IPC wherein accused/juvenile in conflict with law is a minor and in such cases enquiry/trial takes place before Juvenile Justice Board on the basis of DD Entries only.
MLC which is part of DAR shows that claimant suffered injury in road traffic accident taking place on 27.10.2014 at about 8:45 pm. As per MLC he suffered injuries over right forehead and right thumb. On MLC Mark 'A' there is noting to the effect that, "12/12/14 - As per Radiologist opinion on XRay No.8423 and on clinical Records, nature of injury is Grievous Dr. Gurvinder Singh .......".
In the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, by applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, in my considered opinion, issue in hand deserves to be decided in favour of claimant. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY.
ISSUE No.2 Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP In view of my finding(s) on issue no.1 claimant is entitled to compensation u/s. 165 r/w. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per MLC claimant has suffered grievous injury. Claimant was admitted in hospital on 27.10.2014 and was discharged on the same day. Claimant has placed on record bills Ex. PW1/2 worth (i) Rs.153/; (ii) Rs.171/; (iii) Rs.171/; (iv) 171/; (v) Rs.545/; (vi) Rs.380/; (vii) Rs.304/; (viii) Rs.65/ ; (ix) Rs.90/; (x) Rs.152/ ; (xi) Rs.128/; (xiii) Rs.92/; (xiii) Rs.37/; (xiv) Rs.118/; (xv) Rs.121/ and (xvi) Rs.121/, totaling to Rs.2819/. First bill is dated 28.10.2014 and last bill is dated 12.01.2015, which fact suggests that Page No. 6 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI / 30.05.2017 Ram Pal Panchal Vs. Salman @ Sonu & Anr. DAR No. 14/15 claimant remained under treatment for about two and half months at least. In my considered opinion, keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by claimant, claimant is entitled to following compensation under different heads as under :
(i) Medical Bills ₹ 2,819.00
(ii) Pain & Sufferings ₹ 25,000.00
(iii) Loss of income for three months ₹ 30,000.00
(iv) Conveyance / Special Diet / Attendant Charges ₹ 30,000.00 Total ₹ 87,819.00 LIABILITY Defendant no.1 is a minor. His father Alimuddin was appointed as his guardian. Defendant no.2 is registered owner of the offending motorcycle no. DL 5SAK1041 and elder brother of defendant no.1. The motorcycle was not insured. Defendant no.2 has not appeared in the witness box to prove that defendant no.1 had taken the said motorcycle without telling the defendant no.2, as pleaded in WS. Thus, liability of defendant no.1 through guardian/his father Alimuddin and defendant no.2 qua the claimant is joint and several. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY.
ISSUE No.3: Relief NOTE: It is noted that vide order dated 03.02.2015 made by Juvenile Justice Board - II offending vehicle no. DL5SAK1041 was ordered to be auctioned as per Rule 6 of the Delhi MACT Rules, 2008. As per order dated 03.10.2015 the said vehicle was auctioned for an amount of Rs.5500/ and the said amount was deposited in Court vide receipt no. 000122012 dated 03.10.2015. Reader is directed to prepare a voucher for payment of Rs.5500/ to the claimant and deliver the voucher to claimant. Thus, liability of defendants is reduced to Rs.87,819/ Rs.5500/ = Rs.82,319/.
In view of my findings on issues no.1 & 2, defendant no.1 Salman @ Sonu Page No. 7 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI / 30.05.2017 Ram Pal Panchal Vs. Salman @ Sonu & Anr. DAR No. 14/15 through his father/guardian Alimuddin and defendant no.2 Gulzar, are directed to pay, jointly and severally, Rs.82,319.00 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the DAR (06.01.2015) till the date of notice of deposit of awarded amount to the claimant with copy to ld. counsel for claimant. If award is not complied within 30 days from today defendants shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the default period on the default amount. Keeping in view the statement made by claimant under clause 26 of MCTAP, entire awarded amount be released to him. Defendants to deposit the awarded amount by way of crossed cheque/pay order/DD in the name of claimant for the sum in above terms.
9. Put up on 01.07.2017 for compliance.
10. Attested copies of the award be furnished to the concerned parties for compliance. Also certified copy of the award be sent to DLSA and ld. MM.
11. FormIV to Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure is attached herewith as annexureA.
12. File be consigned to record room after completing due formalities.
Pronounced in Open Court on 30.05.2017
(ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD COURTS / DELHI
Page No. 8 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI / 30.05.2017
Ram Pal Panchal Vs. Salman @ Sonu & Anr. DAR No. 14/15
Annexure A
FORM - IV
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident 27.10.2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not applicable inasmuch as accident Officer to the Claims Tribunal. (Clause 2) took place prior to 12.12.2014.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Vehicle not insured Officer to the Insurance Company. (Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. Not known before the Metropolitan Magistrate. (Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report 06.01.2015 (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance Company Vehicle not insured (Clause 11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s) (Clause 11) 06.01.2015
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause No.
16)
9. If not, state deficiencies in the DAR Site plan, multiangle photographs of injured as well as spot of accident not filed, etc.
10. Whether the police has verified the documents filed No. with DAR (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part As above. No. of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action / direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Vehicle not insured Insurance Company. (Clause 19)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated Vehicle not insured Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 19)
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Vehicle not insured Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 21) Page No. 9 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI / 30.05.2017 Ram Pal Panchal Vs. Salman @ Sonu & Anr. DAR No. 14/15
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the Vehicle not insured liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause 22)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part Vehicle not insured of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action / direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer of the Vehicle not insured Insurance Company. (Clause 23)
18. Date of the award 30.05.2017
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent of the No. parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) examined at the time of Yes. passing of the award to ascertain his / their financial condition? (Clause 26)
21. Whether the photographs, specimen signatures, proof Yes. of residence and particulars of bank account of the injured / legal heirs of the deceased taken at the time of passing of the award? (Clause 26)
22. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to the Awarded amount ordered to be released claimant(s). (Clause 28) to claimant as per his needs.
23. Next Date of compliance of the award. 01.07.2017 (Clause 30) (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) P.O. MACT(NorthEast), KKD Delhi Page No. 10 of 10 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI / 30.05.2017