Delhi District Court
Hyat Singh vs Sh Raj Singh (Driver) on 16 February, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. VINEETA GOYAL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02
NORTH-EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.16/09
Date of Institution of the case 15.05.2009
Date on which Award/Judgment was passed 16.02.2010
Hyat Singh
s/o Sh Pratap Singh
r/o H No.B-102, Gupta Colony, Prahladpur
Delhi. ......Petitioner / claimant
VERSUS
1. Sh Raj Singh (Driver)
s/o Sh Randhir Singh
r/o Village Karala
Delhi-110 081.
2. The General Manager (Regd. Owner)
Delhi Transport Corporation
Central Workshop No.1
B B Marg, Kingsway Camp
Delhi-110 009.
Also at:- I P Estate, ITO, New Delhi
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
00-XI, E-85, Himalaya House
8th Floor, K G Marg
New Delhi-110 001. .....Respondents
u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
Appearance: Sh Sh R N Choudhary, counsel for the petitioner
Sh D R Jain, counsel for respondents no.1 and 2
Sh Rakesh Goel, counsel for respondent no.3
AW ARD
1. The present claim petition has been filed by the claimant / petitioner u/s
166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'The Act') for grant of
compensation on account of injuries sustained by him.
2. According to claimant, on 12.02.2009, at about 8.45 p.m, he was going
from Shahdara Border Chowk to Dilshad Garden Metro Station. Whe he reached
just in front of Shahdara Border, G T Road, Dilshad Garden Metro Station at that
time a DTC bus bearing registration no.DL-1PC-1409 of route no.165 which was
being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed, came for his
back side and crushed his right lower limb under the front left wheel (conductor
side). After the accident, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained
multiple fractures on his right lower limb (foot and ankle). He also suffered various
other injuries on all over his body as per MLC and discharge summary. The police
was informed by the public and the PCR van reached on the spot within few
2
minutes and the police shifted him to GTB Hospital for treatment in a precarious
condition. The petitioner remain admitted in the hospital from 12.02.2009 till
17.02.2009 and during admission in the hospital, various tests, x-ray and required
surgery was conducted by the doctor of the hospital.
3. It was further stated that the petitioner was doing the private job with
Gaurav Auto Factory, Ghazipur, Delhi and used to earn Rs.5,000/- p.m as salary.
He has suffered permanent disability and is not in a position to continue his private
service after the accident. He is a married person and his wife was also pregnant
at the time of accident. He has no other source of income. It was submitted that
the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle
(respondent no.1).
4. Pursuant to the notice, the respondents appeared and filed their
separate written statements. Respondents no.1 and 2 contested the petition by
stating that on 12.02.09 the respondent no.1 / driver was on duty with bus no.DL-
1PC-1409 of route no.165 and at about 20.52, he was going from Anand Vihar and
when he reached at Shahdara Border then all of a sudden a person tried to gain
entry from the front gate of the bus which was closed as a result, he fell down on
the road. No accident took place due to negligence on his part and he has been
falsely implicated in this matter. He also stated that the vehicle was fully insured
with United India Insurance Company Ltd vide policy
no.042200/31/08/02/00002408 valid w.e.f 03.10.2008 to 02.10.2009 and hence the
liability, if any is of the respondent no.3. The registration of FIR is admitted and it
was stated that respondent no.2 has deposited Rs.50,000/- as compensation
amount before the Ld Metropolitan Magistrate vide receipt no.000162193 dated
30.03.2009 and said amount with interest is required to be refunded to respondent
no.2/DTC.
5. Respondent no.3 in his written statement took the preliminary objection
that respondent no.1 was not holding a valid driving license and badge, while
driving the vehicle in question and hence, the terms and conditions of the policy of
insurance have been willfully violated by the insured. On merits, the respondent ,
however, submitted that the answering respondent had issued a policy bearing
no.041100/31/08/02/0002408 for the period 03.10.08 to 02.10.09 insuring vehicle
with engine no.62691666 and chassis no.00460 Tata New Bus on the
representation of Delhi Transport Corporation to be the registered owner but
unless it is proved that bus no.DL-1PC-1409 is the same vehicle as insured no
liability can be imposed on the answering respondent. It was submitted that since
the driver was not holding a valid driving licence, no liability can be imposed on the
answering respondent.
3
6. On the pleadings, following issues were framed:-
1.Whether the claimant Hayat Singh received grievous injuries due to rash
and negligent driving of respondent no.1? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, from whom and
what amount? OPP
3. Relief.
7. In order to prove his case, the petitioner himself stepped into witness
box as PW1 and filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and relied upon documents i.e
Election I Card Ex.PW1/A, discharge summary and other medical treatment record
issued by GTB Hospital Ex.PW1/B (colly. - consisting of 08 sheets), medical bills
Ex.PW1/C ( colly. - consisting of 38 sheets), disability certificate Ex.PW1/D, FIR
No.53/09, MLC No.A-620/09, site plan, mechanical inspection report of offending
vehicle i.e DL-1PC-1409, DL of respondent no.1, registration certificate and cover
note of offending vehicle Mark X (colly.) and closed his evidence.
8. Respondents no.1 and 2 choose not to lead any evidence and
respondent no.3 did not lead his evidence and his evidence was closed by order.
9. I have heard Sh R N Choudhary, counsel for the claimant / petitioner,
Sh P K Sisodia, counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sh Rajesh Goel, counsel
for respondent no.3. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue No.1:-
10. Sh Hayat Singh while stepping into witness box as PW1 deposed that
on 12.02.2009, at about 8.45 p.m, he was going from Shahdara Border Chowk to
Dilshad Garden Metro Station. When he reached just in front of Shahdara Border,
G T Road, Dilshad Garden Metro Station at that time a DTC bus bearing
registration no.DL-1PC-1409 of route no.165 which was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner and at a very high speed, came for his back side and crushed
his right lower limb under the front left wheel (conductor side). After the accident,
on account of the accident, he has sustained fracture in his right lower limb (foot
and ankle) and also suffered various other injuries all over his body. He also
deposed that he remain admitted in the hospital from the date of accident i.e
12.02.09 to 17.02.2009 and during his admission in the hospital various tests, x-ray
and required surgery was conducted by the doctor of the hospital. Regarding his
employment, he deposed that he was doing private job with Gaurav Auto Factory,
Gazipur, Delhi and used to earn Rs.5,000/- p.m as salary and on account of the
accident, he has suffered permanent disability and not in a position to continue his
private service after the accident. In his cross-examination, he denied the
suggestion that accident occurred on account of his negligence and accident
occurred on account of the fact that he was trying to board the bus when the bus
door was locked.
4
11. For the assessment of rash and negligent driving, the degree of proof of
rash and negligence is not to so strenuous as required in the criminal case. The
registration of a criminal case against the driver of the offending bus is sufficient in
the compensation matter. Moreover, there is no rebuttal to the testimony of the
petitioner. In the case of Basant Kaur and Others Vs. Chhattarpal Singh and
Others 2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB), it was observed that registration of a criminal case
against the driver of the offending vehicle is enough to record finding that the driver
of the offending vehicle is responsible for causing of the accident. Here in this
case, since there was no rebuttal of the testimony of the petitioner, therefore, it is
established on ground that petitioner sustained injuries on account of negligent
driving of respondent no.1. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the
petitioner.
Issue No.2:-
12. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has sustained
54% permanent disability. He remain admitted in the hospital from 12.02.09 to
17.02.09. He was having fracture on his right lower limb (foot and ankle) and
multiple injuries all over the body. Various tests, x-ray and surgery was conducted
and suffered 54% of permanent disability as per disability certificate. The counsel
for petitioner further argued that the petitioner is aged about 23 years at the time of
accident and on account of the injuries sustained he was almost either on bed or
walked with the help of attendant or baisakhi and has lost his complete capacity of
earning. The petitioner was at the time of accident was doing the private job with
Gaurav Auto Factory and used to earn Rs.5,000/- p.m and on account of the injury
suffered he was not in a position to continue his private job. It was further argued
that the petitioner is a skilled person and the life of the petitioner has become
miserable. He was unable to move properly.
13. On the other hand, it was argued by counsel for the Insurance Company
that the disability should be considered as half as Ex.P1/D in the disability
certificate it is nowhere mentioned the disability viz a viz whole body.
14. As per the petitioner, he received multiple injuries as well as fracture in
right limb and was taken to GTB Hospital and remain admitted there from 12.02.09
to 17.02.09. He proved his medical record and bills and also proved his disability
certificate Ex.P1/D showing that he got 54% of disability. The contention of the
counsel for the petitioner that the disability should be construed viz a viz whole
body does not hold good as the petitioner failed to examine the doctor. In view of
this, the disability of 54% in the permanent disability certificate has to be
considered as 27% for the purpose of calculation of loss of dependency.
15. The petitioner has not filed any income proof or age proof except the
5
medical treatment. In the absence of any documentary proof, his age is mentioned
in the medical record i.e of 23 years is accepted as correct and for the want of any
income proof minimum wage of unskilled labour which was Rs.3,934/- at the time
of accident has to be taken as criteria for computing the compensation in the
present case. The benefit of 30% of actual salary as future prospects in view of
the judgment Sarla Verma and Others Vs DTC and others 2009 ACJ 1298 is given
to the petitioner and this amount comes out to be Rs.1,180.20, adding this amount
of the minimum wage of unskilled labourer it would comes out to be Rs.5,114.20
p.m (rounded off to Rs.5115/-). The petitioner suffered disability as per disability
certificate 54%. It is in relation to the right lower limb therefore, the whole of the
body the disability is calculated as 27%. Taking the age of the petitioner as 23
years, the multiplier of 17 would be appropriate and accordingly, the amount of
compensation on account of permanent disability would come out to be Rs.5,115/-
X 12 X 17 = Rs.2,81,734/-, which amount is awarded to the petitioner.
16. The medical record shows that the petitioner remain admitted in the
hospital from 12.02.09 to 17.02.09 and during his admission various tests, x-ray
and surgery was done. Though the petitioner has not prescribed any medical
prescription to show that he was prescribed complete bed rest. In view of the
injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment, the claim of petitioner for
loss of income is awarded to him for 12 months which would be Rs.5115 X 12 =
Rs.61,380/-. The petitioner is also awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of
pain and suffering and also Rs.12,000/- on account of conveyance and special
diet. The petitioner has filed the bills of Rs.8532/-. they are accordingly treated to
be justified and granted.
17. Accordingly, the injured is entitled to the compensation as per the
following details:-
1. Permanent disability Rs.2,81,734/-
2. Medical Expenses 8,532/-
3. Loss of income 61,380/-
4. Pain and suffering 30,000/-
5. Conveyance and special diet 12,000/-
----------------------
Rs. 3,93,646/-
=============
18. Accordingly, I grant a compensation rounded off Rs.3,94,000/- to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5 % from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation.
Liability:-
619. Since the respondent no.3, the insurance company, did not lead the evidence despite opportunity given and respondents no.1 and 2 in their written statement submits that the offending vehicle of DTC was fully insured with M/s United Insurance Company Ltd vide policy no.041100/31/08/02/0002408 for the period 03.10.08 to 02.10.09 and respondent no.1 was holding an effective and valid driving license at the time of alleged accident. Respondent no.3 in written statement too admitted the policy of the offending vehicle for the period 03.10.08 to 02.10.09.The alleged accident occurred on 12.02.09 so, accordingly, the insurance company is liable to make the payment to the petitioner. Accordingly , an award of Rs.3,94,000/- is passed in favour of petitioner alongwith interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till the realisation against respondent no.3 minus the amount of Rs.50,000/- if any received by the petitioner which was deposited by respondent no.2. The amount be deposited within 30 days under intimation to the petitioner and in case of default, further penal interest would be @ 12% p.a thereon for each defaulting day. Attested copies of award be furnished to the parties. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANbasNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e ON 16/02/2010 (VINEETA GOYAL) Additional District Judge Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 7 MACT No.16/09 16.02.2010 Present: Sh Sh R N Choudhary, counsel for the petitioner Sh D R Jain, counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 Sh Rakesh Goel, counsel for respondent no.3 Award has been passed separately. Copies of the award be given free of cost to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Vineeta Goyal) ADJ-02/NE/16.02.2010