Delhi District Court
Meera vs . Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors. on 6 June, 2019
Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMEER BAJPAI : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 76/17
FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli
Meera Devi
W/o Shri Ram Mohan
R/o D6/201, Street No.6,
Chattarpur Pahari, Ambedkar Colony,
New Delhi
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Ranjeet Chauhan
S/o Sh. Guddu
R/o 51, Amebdkar Colony,
Aya Nagar, New Dehi - 110 047 ..... Driver cum User
2. Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Ulfat Singh
R/o 2/119, Khasra No. 1821/2,
Bandh Road, Aya Naar Ext.
New Delhi ..... Owner
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Delhi ..... Insurance Company
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 09.02.2017
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 06.06.2019
Date of pronouncement : 06.06.2019
Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 1/18
Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
JUDGMENT:
1. By this order I shall dispose of the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by SHO, police station Mehrauli for the injuries sustained by Meera in a road accident on 15.04.2016 at about 9.00 a.m. in front of Sai Mandir, Chattarpur Road within the jurisdiction of police station Mehrauli due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL 3S BK 2980 driven and used by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3.
2. Respondents no.1 and 2 despite being given opportunity, did not file any reply.
3. Respondent no.3 insurance company filed its reply to the DAR denying the averments made in the DAR. It however, admitted that the vehicle bearing no. DL 3S BK 2980 was insured with it vide policy no. 215201/31/2016/1674 for the period from 24.06.2015 to 23.06.2016.
4. For just adjudication of the case following issues were framed vide order dated 25.07.2017 :
1. Whether Meera sustained injuries in a road accident on 15.04.2016 at about 9.00 a.m. in front of Sai Mandir, Chattarpur Road within the jurisdiction of police station Mehrauli due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL 3S BK 2980 being driven and used by Ranjeet Chauhan, owned by Anil Kumar and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.?Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 2/18
Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
2. To what amount of compensation, the injured is entitled and from whom?
3. Relief.
5. In evidence petitioner examined herself as PW1. She tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3 (Colly.).
6. Respondent no.1 examined himself as R1W1. He tendered in evidence his treatment papers Ex.R1W1/A to Ex.R1W1/B.
7. Respondent no.3 examined Ms. Beena Kumari, its Administrative Officer as R3W1. She tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.R3W1/1 and relied upon the documents Ex.R3W1/2 to Ex.R3W1/3 (Colly.).
8. I have heard arguments advanced by ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record. My findings on the issues are as follows :
I S S U E No. 19. Needless to say that for making someone entitled U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle needs to be proved and to prove the same the Tribunal need not go into the technicalities because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just, rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. It is an admitted Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 3/18 Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
legal position that the negligence on part of the driver with respect to use of the vehicle needs to be established and the same is to be established on the principle of preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III (2015) ACC 435 Delhi.
PW1 (petitioner) stated that she is having a shop of flower near Chattarpur Mandir. She further stated that on 15.04.2016 at about 9.00 a.m. when she was going to take water for the shop, all of a sudden a motorcycle bearing no. DL 3S BK 2980 came from wrong side being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and hit her from behind. Due to the forceful impact she fell down and sustained injuries. She was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Center by the Ambulance where her MLC bearing no. 5540448 was prepared. She further stated that a case vide FIR no. 1005/16 was registered at the police station Mehrauli. She further stated that the driver of the motorcycle was caught at the spot. She further stated that due to her serious condition, she was referred to Safdarjung Hospital and thereafter her relatives took her to Holy Family Hospital where she remained hospitalised from 15.04.2016 to 20.04.2016.
During crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, she stated that her shop of flowers is situated on the road where 'Sadhna Kendra' is shown in the site plan. She further stated that at the time of accident, she was crossing the road and she had crossed half the road. She further stated that there is no red light or zebra crossing from the point where she had crossed the road. She further stated that there is a divider in between the road dividing the two roads and there is a railing on the divider. There was a gap in between the railing from where she crossed the road. She further Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 4/18 Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
stated that there is a red light meant for pedestrian for crossing the road about 2025 steps away from where she was crossing the road. She further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was coming from Chattarpur Metro station road. She denied that the accident had taken place due to her own negligence as she was not observing the traffic rules while crossing the road. She further denied that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. She further denied that Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) and Ex.PW1/2 (colly.) are forged and fabricated and procured documents.
During crossexamination on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 she stated that the road where the accident took place is a two way road. She further stated that the respondent no.1 was driving the vehicle in high speed. She further stated that she was looking on her left side to see the oncoming traffic. She stated that she was not looking on her right side. She denied that no such accident had taken place with the offending vehicle.
Respondent no.1 stated that he was working as a plumber and his site was at Chattarpur. He further stated that on 15.04.2016 he was going to his work place. He further stated that when he reached near Sai Mandir bus stand Chattarpur, all of a sudden one car overtook him and applied sudden brake. He further stated that due to disbalance of the motorcycle he fell down on footpath and sustained injuries. Then Ambulance came and took him to the hospital alongwith the police personnel. He further stated that he remained bed ridden for almost two months. He further stated that he received injuries on his eye. He tendered in evidence his treatment papers Ex.R1W1/A and Ex.R1W1/B. He further stated that the police personnel met Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 5/18 Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
him in the hospital and got his signatures on some documents. He further stated that after 23 months, he received summon from the Court, then he knew that a case was registered against him. He further stated that this is a false case against him. He further stated that he did not hit anybody with his motorcycle.
During crossexamination on behalf of the petitioner/injured he stated that he know a little bit Hindi and English. He further stated that he cannot write Hindi and English. He further stated that he was not holding any driving license at the time of accident. He denied that at the time of accident he was coming from wrong side and hit the petitioner from behind when the petitioner was crossing the road. He further denied that after hitting the injured he also fell down on the road. He further denied that a car overtook him and due to which he applied sudden brakes and fell down on the road. He further stated that he did not make any complaint to the higher officials regarding his false implication in the present case. He admitted that he did not file any reply to the present DAR. He denied that due to his carelessness, the accident had happened.
During crossexamination on behalf of the insurance company he stated that his driving license was made on 27.10.2016 i.e. after the accident.
10. The petitioner alleges that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 as he came on his motorcycle in wrong side and hit her from behind. In his examination the respondent no.1 denies this fact with the averment that he himself received injuries as a car Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 6/18 Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
overtook him and applied sudden brakes and consequently he got dis balanced. He contends that he received summons from the court after 23 months and then only came to know that a case was registered against him.
The defence as raised by the respondent no.1 doesn't seem to be plausible as the I.O. seized the motorcycle on 17.04.2016 and also seized the photocopy of R.C. of the motorcycle on the same day. Further, on 17.04.2016 itself the I.O. released the respondent no.1 on taking his bail bond. Thus, the respondent no.1 very well knew about the case and the proceedings against him.
11. Now, the question is whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to the accident in question in the alleged manner.
12. The petitioner in her statement before the Tribunal and as given to the police stated that on the given day and time the respondent no.1 hit her from behind. In crossexamination the petitioner however, has admitted admits that there is no red light or zebra crossing at the point from where she was crossing the road. She states that there is a divider on the road, dividing the road in two parts and there is a railing on the road. She also admits that there was a gap in the railing from where she was crossing the road. She further admits that there is a red light about 2025 steps away from the place from where she was crossing the road and the said red light is meant for pedestrians to cross the road. It is clear from the admission of the petitioner that she was not crossing the road from a proper place. In fact, she jumped or passed through the railing and definitely that place was not supposed to Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 7/18 Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
be a place from where the petitioner should have tried to cross the road.
Thus, from the statement of the petitioner, scene as depicted in the site plan as well as the fact that the respondent no.1 did not have a driving license, I conclude that the respondent no.1 was negligent in driving his motorcycle, but the petitioner herself was also negligent in crossing the road and contributed in the accident. I therefore, take the contributory negligence of the petitioner at 30%.
Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
I S S U E No. 213. The petitioner has claimed compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him. In a road accident a person is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.
Let me assess the compensation which the claimant is entitled for under different heads :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
14. In the present case the petitioner has filed medical bills of Rs. 1,04,690/.
Therefore, I award Rs. 1,04,700/ to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
15. As per the discharge summary the petitioner was diagnosed with Fracture Shaft Femur. She was again admitted in Holy Family Hospital for the period Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 8/18 Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
from 13.04.2018 to 16.04.2018 for nonunion shaft of left femur. Femur Interlocking Titanium nail was fixed. She was again hospitalised in Holy Family Hospital from 14.07.2018 to 15.07.2018.
Looking into the injuries and treatment of the petitioner, I award her Rs.40,000/ towards pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
16. In the present case the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. However, the injuries on his person were such that he must have taken special diet for his early recovery. He must have spent some amount on conveyance and attendant. Therefore, looking into all the facts, I award Rs.20,000/ to the petitioner towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME :
17. Petitioner stated that she is illiterate and was self employed i.e. selling the flower in front of Sri Sai Mandir and used to earn Rs.15,000/ p.m. She further stated that she is the bread earner of her family. She further stated that due to the accident the future and earning of the petitioner is badly affected as she was compelled to confined to bed for a long period of seven to eight months.
During crossexamination she denied that she was selling the flowers and was not earning Rs.15,000/ p.m. She further denied that she was not able to work for a period of five months after the accident and four months after her second operation. She further denied that she was not confined to Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 9/18 Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
bed for a period of seven to eight months due to the accident.
In the present case the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to her occupation and income. Therefore, this Tribunal has no option but to take minimum wages of an 'unskilled person' which on the date of accident were Rs.9,568/ p.m. The injuries on the person for the petitioner were such that she must have remained out of work at least for six months. Therefore, the loss of income comes to Rs.57,408/ (Rs.9,568 x 6) which is rounded off to Rs.57,500/. I therefore, award Rs.57,500/ to the petitioner towards loss of income.
18. Thus, the total compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner is assessed as under :
MEDICAL EXPENSES : Rs. 1,04,700/
PAIN & SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE : Rs. 40,000/
SPEICAL DIET, CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT : Rs. 20,000/
LOSS OF INCOME : Rs. 57,500/
============
TOTAL : Rs. 2,22,200/
============
LIABILITY
19. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1, primary liability to compensate the petitioner remains with respondent no. 1. Since the vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 he is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3. Therefore, respondent no.3 is directed to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 10/18Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
20. In order to exonerate the insurance company from its liability respondent no.3 insurance company contended that the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle without driving license. She relied upon the testimony of R3W1.
21. R3W1 stated that the offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no.
215201/31/2016/1674 for the period from 24.06.15 to 23.06.16 Ex.R3W1/2. She further stated that the respondent no.1 was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. She further stated that as per the verification report filed by the I.O. the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a driving license and accordingly, he has been challaned u/s 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. She further stated that their counsel sent notices u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC Ex.R3W1/3 (colly.) to the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
She was not crossexamined.
22. In the charge sheet the investigating officer has added the section 3/181 of the M.V. Act meaning thereby that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. This is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. However, the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 insurance company. Thus, it is ordered that the insurance company shall make the payment to the petitioner at the first instance and then it can recover the same from the respondents no.1 and 2.
Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 11/18Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
RELIEF
23. In view of my findings, I award Rs. 1,55,540/ (Rs. One Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Five Hundred Forty only) i.e. 70% of Rs. 2,22,200/ to the petitioner as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR till its realisation. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit for a period of three years.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
24. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble High Court, respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioner with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
25. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner :
1. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
2. No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
3. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 12/18Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
4. On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
5. Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
6. The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs.
7. The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondent no.3 in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period.
8. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 4112541127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by him to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 326. The Respondent no.3 is directed to file the compliance report of his having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
27. The Respondent no.3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 13/18 Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
28. The Respondent no.3 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the award amount in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate her to withdraw the same.
29. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no.3.
30. Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to the parties for compliance.
31. The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no.3 insurance company for 06.07.2019.
FORM IVB SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1) Date of accident : 15.04.2016
2) Name of the injured : Meera
3) Age of the injured: 38 years
4) Occupation of the injured : Selling flowers
5) Income of the injured : Rs. 9,568/ (minimum wages)
6) Nature of injury : Grievous Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 14/18 Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
7) Period of hospitalisation : 04 days.
8) Treatment taken : CRIF with femur interlock nail Left was done.
9) Whether any permanent disability? : No.
10. Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
11 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Rs.1,04,700/
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs.20,000/
attendant
iii Loss of earning capacity
iv Loss of Income Rs.57,500/
v Any other loss which may require any special
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
12 NonPecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock ii Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/ iii Mental Shock iv Disfiguration and marriage prospects v Loss of marriage prospects vi Compensation on account of permanent disability
13 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
14 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1,55,540/ after deducting 30% Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 15/18 Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
towards contributory negligence.
15 INTEREST AWARDED 9% 16 Total amount of interest Rs.32,548/ 17 Total amount including interest Rs.1,88,088/ 18 Award amount released Rs.88,088/ 19 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.1,00,000/ 20 Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Rs. 88,088/ is the claimant(s) released in cash and Rs.1,00,000/ is directed to be kept in the form of FDR for a period of 03 years.
21 Next date for compliance of the award 06.07.2019 FormV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure to be mentioned in the Award is as under :
1 Date of the accident 15.04.2016 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the 18.04.2016 Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the 09.02.2017 Investigating Officer to the insurance company 4 Date of filing of Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. before Not available the Metropolitan Magistrate 5 Date of filing the Detailed Accident Report 09.02.2017 (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal 6 Date of service of DAR on the insurance 09.02.2017 company 7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant 09.02.2017 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respect? Yes Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 16/18 Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
9 If not, state deficiencies in the DAR N.A. 10 Whether the police has verified the documents Yes filed with DAR 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not known by the insurance company.
13 Name, address and contact number of the Not known designated officer of the insurance company. 14 Whether the designated officer of the insurance Yes company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
15 Whether the insurance company admitted the No liability? If so, whether the designated officer of the insurance company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No
the part 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 25.07.2017
of the insurance company.
18 Date of the award 06.06.2019
19 Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20 Whether the photographs, specimen signatures, Yes
proof of residence and particulars of bank
account of the injured/legal heirs of the
deceased taken at the time of passing of the
award?
21 Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Some amount is
the claimant (s). released and some
Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 17/18
Meera vs. Ranjeet Chauhan & Ors.
amount is directed to
be kept in the form for
fixed deposit.
22 Next date for compliance of the award. 06.07.2019
Digitally signed
SAMEER by SAMEER
BAJPAI
BAJPAI Date: 2019.06.06
Announced in the Open Court
14:50:27 +0530
on 06th day of June, 2019 (SAMEER BAJPAI)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
Petition no. 76/17, FIR No. : 1005/16, PS : Mehrauli Page No. 18/18