Delhi District Court
Sh. Krishan Pal S/O Sh. Tara Chand vs Sh. Kapoor Singh S/O Sh. Shanker Ram on 6 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI CHANDRA BOSE:
JUDGE:MACT:DELHI
MACT NO. : 155/09/07
UNIQUE ID CASE NO: 02404C0095472009
Sh. Krishan Pal S/o Sh. Tara Chand
R/o Village & PO Kundli, Distt. Sonipat,
Haryana (Petitioner)
Versus
1. Sh. Kapoor Singh S/o Sh. Shanker Ram
R/o Village Rajara, PS Pilu Kheda Mandi,
Distt. Jind, Haryana
2. Sh. Rajinder Prakash S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop
R/o RZ62/7, R. Mohan Nagar, Pankha Road, New Delhi
3. M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd,
5th Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building,
124, Cannaught Place, N. Delhi
(Respondents)
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.07.07 DATE OF RESERVING ORDER: 24.09.11 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.03.12 AWARD
01. This claim petition has been filed U/s 166 and 140 of M.V. Act 1988 by the petitioner seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs for accidental injuries against Sh. Kapoor Singh, Sh.
MACT No. 15507 1 of 9 Rajinder Prakash and M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd, (hereinafter to be referred as R1, R2 and R3 respectively).
02. The brief facts of the case, as per claim petition, are that on 27.02.07 at about 7:45 am he alighted from bus No. DL1PB3436 and was boarding another DTC bus and in the meantime bus no. DL1PB3436 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and hit him and dragged him for a considerable distance and he sustained injuries. He was removed to Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi
03. WS was filed on behalf of R1 and R2 wherein petitioner's case was denied. It was also submitted that offending vehicle was insured with R3.
04. W.S was filed on behalf of R3 wherein petitioner's case was denied. However, it was admitted that vehicle no. DL1PB3436 was insured vide policy no. 312500/31/06/01/00003294 valid from 05.10.06 to 04.10.07.
05. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 10.04.08:
(i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries as put forth in the petition on account of rash and negligent driving of driver Sh.
Kapoor Singh of bus no. DL1Pb3436 on 27.02.07 at DTC Bus stand, GTB Nagar? OPP.
MACT No. 15507 2 of 9 (ii) What amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? (iii) Relief.
06. In order to prove his case, petitioner filed his affidavit. He was cross examined on behalf of R3. PW2 Sh. D.K. Sharma, Record Clerk, Hindu Rao Hospital and PW3 HC Mukesh Kumar were also examined on behalf of petitioner and were cross examined on behalf of R3. No evidence was led on behalf of respondents.
07. I heard final arguments of counsel for petitioner and counsel for R3.. I considered their submissions and evidence on record. My findings on the issues are as under:
08. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NUMBER 1:
In order to prove this issue, petitioner has filed his affidavit and stated that on 27.02.07 at about 7:45 am, he alighted from bus No. DL1PB3436 and was boarding another DTC bus and in the meantime bus no. DL1PB3436 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and hit and dragged him for a considerable distance. It is further stated that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL1PB3436 and he sustained injuries. It is further stated that he was removed to Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi where he remained admitted on 27.02.07 to 10.03.07.
MACT No. 15507 3 of 9 He was crossexamined on behalf of insurance co. I have carefully gone through the entire crossexamination of petitioner and found that no effective crossexamination has been conducted on the point of rash and negligent driving and the testimony of petitioner on this point remained uncontroverted. No arguments were addressed on any of the issues on behalf of insurance co. and proxy counsel for counsel for insurance co. had submitted that the award may be passed on the basis of record. Certified copies of criminal record has been filed from which it is found that R1 was chargesheeted by the police. No evidence has been led on behalf of R1, R2 and R3 to prove the fact that petitioner was also negligent and contributed to accident. Considering the testimony of petitioner, I am of the view that petitioner has proved the fact that he had sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Kapoor Singh of Bus no. DL1PB343.6 on 27.02.07 at about 7:45 am at bus stand GTB Nagar. This issue is decided accordingly.
09. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO.2 Since petitioner has sustained injuries in the present accident, he is entitled to file claim and also entitled to compensation. Every victim of roadside accident is entitled to receive compensation in terms of money. The amount of compensation is of help to the victim to avail better treatment. It also helps to recoup their losses and MACT No. 15507 4 of 9 expenditure which had been incurred. Compensation is granted under the following heads:
(i) Compensation for pain & sufferings. (ii) Compensation for expenses incurred on medical
treatment, special diet, conveyance and attendant.
(iii) Compensation on account of loss of income.
(iv) Compensation on account of future loss of earning capacity due to disability.
(v) Compensation on account of loss of enjoyment of amenities of life .
10. The relevant heads are discussed as under:
(i) Compensation for pain and sufferings;
In his affidavit, petitioner has stated that he sustained fracture and other multiple injuries all over his body. I carefully gone through the treatment record filed on behalf of petitioner. PW2 Sh. D.K. Sharma, Record Clerk, Hindu Rao Hospital was examined. He had brought the treatment record of petitioner containing 46 pages collectively Ex. PW2/1. He has proved the fact that as per record, petitioner was admitted from 27.02.07 to 10.03.07. From the treatment record, it has been proved on behalf of petitioner that petitioner had suffered fracture of pelvis.
MACT No. 15507 5 of 9 Therefore, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, period of admission in hospital and period of treatment, I am of the view that petitioner has suffered too much pain and agony at the time of accident as well as during treatment. Therefore, he is granted Rs. 50,000/ under this head.
(ii) Compensation for expenses incurred on medical treatment, special diet, conveyance and attendant:
Petitioner has relied upon the medical bills Ex. PW1/6 to PW1/14 which comes to Rs. 4962/ Therefore, he is granted Rs. 4962/under this head.
Considering the fact that some kind of special diet is required for healing wounds sustained in accidental cases, I am of the view that petitioner should be granted compensation under this head. Therefore, he is granted Rs. 3,000/ on special diet.
Petitioner is resident of Village and Post Kundli, Sonipat Haryana. He was treated in Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi. Therefore, In my view, he if he is granted Rs. 2000/, it would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, he is granted Rs.2,000/ in respect of conveyance.
(iii) Compensation on account of loss of Income.
Petitioner has not stated in his affidavit that he was not paid MACT No. 15507 6 of 9 salary during medical leaves of 3 months. Therefore, I am of the view that there was no loss of income during medical leave. Therefore, nothing can be granted under this head.
III Compensation on account of leaves availed by the petitioner.
Petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he could not join his duty about about 3 months. He has also stated during cross examination that he was granted 3 months leaves. On perusal of record, it is found that photocopy of medical certificate issued by medical officer Hindu Rao Hospital is on record. In the said medical certificate, petitioner was advised absence from duty for 3 months for restoration of health. Therefore, I am of the view that the testimony of petitioner for availing leaves of 3 months is trust worthy. Since petitioner could have availed these leaves for other purposes when it would have been needed. In view of ratio of case law namely "Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs Ganeshwar Sharma and another, 2001 ACJ 931 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Shyam Kumar and others, 2006 ACJ 2092", I am of the view that petitioner should be granted compensation on account of loss of 3 months leaves. Petitioner was working as Head Constable at the time of accident and he was getting Rs. 14,773/ per month as per salary MACT No. 15507 7 of 9 certificate Ex. PW1/15. Therefore, Rs. 44,319/ (14,773/ *3) is granted for loss of leaves of 3 months.
IV Compensation on account of loss of enjoyment of amenities of life during treatment.
Petitioner could not enjoy amenities of life during his treatment. Therefore, it would be in the fitness of things, if he is paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/ for loss of enjoyment of amenities of life. As such he is granted Rs.10,000/ under this head.
11. For the discussions as above, petitioner is granted compensation under following heads:
1. Compensation for pain & sufferings. : 50,000/
2. Compensation for expenses incurred on medical : 9962/ treatment, special diet, conveyance and other expenses.
3. Compensation on account of loss of : 44,319/ leaves availing during treatment.
4. Compensation on account of loss of enjoyments of amenities of life : 10,000/ _______________ Total Rs. 1,14,281/ _______________ MACT No. 15507 8 of 9
12. To sum up, I hold that petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 1,14,281/.
13. So far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, it is primarily duty of R1, i.e. driver of offending vehicle, R2, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle and R3, i.e insurer of the offending vehicle are vicariously liable for the damages suffered by the petitioner. The vehicle was duly insured with R3 and R1 was having valid & effective DL as on the date of the accident. Therefore, R3 is liable to pay the compensation. This issue is decided accordingly.
14. RELIEF I have already held above that the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 1,14,281/ from R3. I direct R3 to pay the said amount to petitioner within 50 days of today alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum to be calculated from the date of institution till date of actual deposit failing which petitioner would be entitled to further interest @ 12% for the delayed period.
15. Copy of this order be given to parties for compliance.
16. Petition is disposed of on aforesaid terms. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (CHANDRA BOSE)
ON 06.03.12 JUDGE/MACT:ROHINI
DELHI
MACT No. 15507 9 of 9