Delhi District Court
Petition No. 480/09 vs Jogi Yadav S/O Sh Sonfi Rai on 13 April, 2010
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA:
JUDGE: MACT(OUTER): ROHINI: DELHI
PETITION NO. 480/09
Sh. Satish Kumar Gautam
S/o Late Sh. Baljit Gautam
R/o Village Singhola, Delhi. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. Jogi Yadav S/o Sh Sonfi Rai,
R/o H.No. 143, Nai Pana Mamurpur,
Narela, Delhi40. ...Driver
2. Sandeep Goel S/o Sh. V.N. Goel,
R/o H.No 111, New Modern Appts,
Sector9, Rohini, New Delhi85. ...Owner
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
G80, Gupta Market, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi92.
Covernote No. 473223. Valid from 14.10.2006
to 13.10.2007. ....Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 13/02/2007 CASE TRANSFERRED TO THIS COURT ON: 18/03/2009 :2: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 05/04/2010 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/04/2010 APPEARANCES:
Counsel Sh. Deepak Tyagi for the petitioner Counsel Sh. Shyam Singh for insurance company AWARD:
1. The petitioner seeks compensation for the accidental injuries by way of present petition filed U/s 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the ground that on 16.12.2006 at about 2.20 p.m, he was going on his bicycle at Singhola Border from his residence. When he reached at G.T.K. Road near bus stand village Singhola, Delhi, a tempo bearing no.
DLILG5463 (Tata407) driven by respondent no.1 Jogi Yadav in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the petitioner along with his bicycle with a great force. He fell down on the road and received grievous injuries on his body. He was removed to Satyavati Raja Harish Chander Hospital, Narela, Delhi. The accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. It is contended that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay :3: compensation to the petitioner. Claim of Rs 8 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a is put forth by the petitioner on account of injuries sustained in the accident, conveyance charges, attendant charges etc, loss of future pecuniary benefits on account of temporary/permanent disability, loss of service and other special and general damages as admissible under the Law.
2. The respondent no.1 filed reply to the application U/s 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act taking preliminary objections that the petition is liable to be dismissed as petitioner has come to the court with unclean hands and the petition is based on incorrect facts. It is submitted that neither the answering respondent caused any accident nor the petitioner sustained injuries with the vehicle of respondent. The petitioner has made out a false story with bad intention of extracting money from respondents.
The respondent no.1 has also taken additional pleas stating therein that on 16.12.2006, the petitioner was driving his cycle on G.T.K. Road in improper manner. The answering respondent was driving the tempo at normal speed :4: and blew horn since the manner of driving of the cycle gave him a signal that cyclist has got some trouble. Ultimately, the cyclist fell down being a patient of blood sugar. People gathered on the spot and requested him to take him to the hospital in the tempo, where he falsely stated to ASI that tempo no. DLILG5463 hit him from behind, whereas the fact is that petitioner had already sustained injuries due to his own fall on the road because of weakness sustained by him due to disease of blood sugar which fact is evident from FIR no. 524, PS: Alipur. The respondent has been falsely implicated. The petitioner has taken false stand to extract money. Further, denying other averments of the petition, it is stated that petitioner is not entitled to any relief of compensation.
3. There is no written statement on the record filed on behalf of respondent no.2
4. The respondent no.3/insurance company filed written statement taking preliminary objections about holding of valid and effective driving licence by the driver of offending vehicle, exaggerated claim of petitioner and contributory :5: negligence. The respondent no.3 has also taken additional pleas regarding breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy and also about the guidelines issued by RBI concerning rate of interest. On merits, case of the petitioner is denied however it is admitted that the vehicle was duly insured as on the date of accident. Further, denying other averments of the petition, it is prayed that petition be dismissed.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 22/07/2008:
1. Whether on 16.12.06 at 2.20 p.m, near bus stand village Singhola, tempo no. DL1LG5463 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit bicycle of the petitioner and caused injuries to him? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
6. The petitioner examined himself as PW1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence vide Ex PW 1/A. He also tendered :6: photocopy of election Icard Ex PW 1/1 and attested copies of discharge slips along with treatment record collectively Ex PW 1/ 2 (containing 14 pages). He has been crossexamined on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2. Thereafter petitioner closed his evidence.
7. No evidence was led on behalf of respondents hence respondents' evidence was also closed.
8. I have heard Ld counsel Sh Deepak Tyagi for the petitioner, Counsel Sh Shyam Singh for insurance company and given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and the record.
My findings on the above mentioned issues are as follows:
ISSUE NO 1: Whether on 16.12.06 at 2.20 p.m, near bus stand village Singhola, tempo no. DL1LG5463 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit bicycle of the petitioner and caused injuries to him?
9. So far as the factum of accident is concerned, PW1 has testified in detail about the factum and manner of accident. During crossexamination on behalf of respondents :7: no.1 and 2, petitioner denied the suggestion that accident has taken place due to his fault or that he is deposing falsely. FIR has also been on recorded relating to the accident. The registration number of offending vehicle is mentioned by the petitioner and also the name of respondent Jogi Yadav. It is corroborated by the documents prepared during the course of investigation that accident has taken place due to the fault of respondent no.1. Although, it has been suggested on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 that petitioner himself was negligent but there has been no elaboration of the facts and circumstances leading to the alleged negligence of petitioner. The additional pleas taken in written statement were not taken up to question the petitioner on those aspects. The respondents no.1 and 2 have failed to establish their defence. The testimony of petitioner as well as documentary evidence is consistent and confident enough to establish that respondent no.1 is responsible for causing the accident. It is further evident from the medical record and MLC that grievous injuries resulted to the petitioner in the accident. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of petitioner and :8: against the respondents.
ISSUE NO 2: Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation if so, to what amount and from whom?
9. The petitioner has suffered grievous injuries in the accident and therefore is entitled to just and reasonable compensation for the damages suffered by him. The petitioner is entitled to receive compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under the following heads: Medical Treatment, Special Diet & Conveyance: The petitioner remained hospitalized at Lok Nayak Hospital w.e.f 16.12.2006 to 30.12.2006. He was treated in government hospital therefore no medical bills are placed on record. However, considering the nature of injuries and period of hospitalization the petitioner is granted a consolidated sum of Rs 10,000/ for medical expenses, special diet and conveyance.
Loss of income The petitioner is entitled to loss of income for the :9: period he remained on medical rest due to injuries. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he was working as security guard with Indian Oil earning Rs 5,000/ p.m. He could not carry on his job for about six months. However, there is no documentary proof of the employment and income of petitioner therefore minimum wages schedule is taken as guideline and income of the petitioner is taken as Rs 3312/ as on the date of accident. It is clear from the documents placed on record that petitioner was fit to join his duties after five months therefore he is granted loss of income for 5 months which comes to Rs 16,560/ (3312 x 5) rounded of to Rs 16,600/.
Pain & Sufferings: The petitioner sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and remained hospitalized at Lok Nayak Hospital w.e.f 16.12.2006 to 30.12.2006. He must have suffered immense pain and sufferings, I therefore grant a sum of Rs 20,000/ to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings. Thus, the total compensation payable to petitioner is :10: detailed as below:
1. Medical Expenses S.diet/conveyance Rs 10,000/
2. Loss of income Rs 16,600/
3. Pain & sufferings Rs 20,000/ ___________ Total compensation Rs 46,600/
10. So far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, the insurance company has not led any evidence with respect to the violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In the circumstances, respondent no.1 being the driver is primarily liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 and 3 being owner and insurer are vicariously liable to pay the compensation. Compensation is payable by respondent no.3 being insurer, as vehicle was duly insured as on the date of accident. The issue is disposed of accordingly.
RELIEF:
11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I hereby hold that petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs 46,600/ along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of present petition till its realization. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed :11: to deposit the cheque of compensation in the name of claimant within 30 days before this Tribunal. The petition is disposed off in aforesaid terms. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE (ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA)
OPEN COURT JUDGE MACT: ROHINI (OUTER)
ON 13th day of April 2010 DELHI
:12:
Satish Kumar Gautam Vs Jogi Yadav
Suit no. 480/09
13/4/2010
Present: Counsel Sh Deepak Tyagi for the petitioner along with petitioner in person Petition disposed off vide my separate judgment announced in the open court. File be consigned to Record Room.
(ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA) JUDGE MACT: ROHINI (OUTER): DELHI