Delhi District Court
This Order Of Mine Shall Dispose Off ... vs Chattar Pal Singh And Ors on 27 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. VINEETA GOYAL: PO-MACT (SOUTH-01)
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
INJURY CASE
FIR no. : 231/11
PS : R. K. Puram
IN THE MATTER OF :-
1. Sh. Anil Kumar Sukhla
S/o. Sh. Suresh Chand
R/o.Sanjay Gandhi Camp
Sector-7, R. K. Puram
New Delhi. --------- Injured.
Versus
1. Sh.Vikram Singh @Vicky
S/o. Sh. Arun Singh,
R/o. Gaon Herc Dharabanga,
Distt. Dharbanga,Bihar.
Also R/o.Amarjeet Taxi Stand
Sector-4, R. K. Puram
New Delhi. -------- Driver
2. Sh. Amarjeet Singh
R/o. H. No.141A Sultan Pur,
Mehrauli, New Delhi ------ Owner
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
106 Palica Bhawan
New Delhi
----- Insurer
-------- Respondents
Date of filing Accident Information Report : 01.11.2011 Date of arguments : 16.08.2012 Date of order : 27.08.2012 FIR no.231/11 PS R. K. Puram Page no. 1/7 Appearance:Ms. Sunita Bhaskar, counsel for injured.
None for owner and driver.
Sh. Manish, counsel for insurance company.
JUDGMENT/AWARD
1. This order of mine shall dispose off Detailed Accident Report filed in respect of FIR No.231/11 of police station R. K. South registered under Section 279/338 IPC on account of grievous injuries sustained by victim Sh. Anil Kumar Shukla in an accident which took place on 03.09.2011 at about 07.00 am. Brief fact of the accident are that on the date of accident victim was going in TSR and when he reached at Sector-1, Red Light R. K. Puram New Delhi, his TSR was hit by a qualis car bearing registration no. DL-3CAA-3622 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner. Due to this, victim fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was removed to Safdarjung Hospital after the accident for treatment.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time filing of accident report parties appeared and it was informed that the statuary report will be treated as claim petition and they can file the reply to the form 54 and thereafter matter was adjourned for filing legal offer/reply. Despite opportunity given driver and owner failed to file any reply. Insurance company in its written reasoned legal offer admitted the validity of insurance policy No.360906/31/10/610006283 in the name of Amarjeet Singh covering the period of accident and offered Rs.22,000/- towards settlement of case. The claimant refused accept the same and matter was adjourned for recording of statement of injured.
3. From the available material on record, the following issues were framed on 20.03.2012:
FIR no.231/11 PS R. K. Puram Page no. 2/7 Issues:
1. Whether injured suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 03.09.2011 at about 07.00 am involving vehicle qualis bearing No.- DL-3CAA-3622 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle Vikram Singh owned by Amarjeet Singh, and insured with National Insurance Co.? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If, so to what amount and against which of the respondents?
3. Relief.
4. In support of his case, petitioner himself stepped into witness box as PW1, who proved his affidavit by way of evidence as Ex.PW1/A and placed referred documents herein as Ex.PW1/A to PW1/H viz chargesheet, FIR, Site plan, medical documents, medical certificate, driving licence, photocopy of driving licence of erring driver, registration certificate and insurance policy of vehicle in question. The petitioner also got examined Dr. Udbhav Dorwal, Sr. Resident Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital and stated that he has examined petitioner on 10.07.2012 and found to have normal visual acuity of 6/6 in both eyes. He was suffering from Diplopia, limitation of movement in right eye in upper case. The patient was referred to Gurunanak eye hospital for the same and the opinion of the OPD statement. This witness was cross examined by counsel for insurance company. In opening lines of cross examination, PW2 stated that injured is not suffering from double vision (in primary case) and it is not a congenital disease in normal course of leaving. The aforesaid problem will occur special circumstances. He further stated that the double vision is not a permanent disability and will not effect the driving/specialized skill job of injured. No intervention is required for the treatment of double vision.
5. Insurance company in its defence choose not to lead its evidence and as FIR no.231/11 PS R. K. Puram Page no. 3/7 such closed the same.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for parties and gone through the case file and my findings on the issues are as under:-
Issue No. 17. This present information report is outcome of accident which occurred on 03.09.2011 within the jurisdiction of P.S R. K. Puram New Delhi. Investigating Officer has placed on record an FIR along with other relevant documents including affidavit, report u/s 173 Cr. P. C. site plan, MLC, motor inspection report, verified insurance policy, driving licence of accused, driving licence verification report, RC of offending vehicle, RC verification report etc.
8. In the case of Basant Kaur and others vs. Chattar Pal Singh and Ors.
2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB), it was observed that registration of criminal case against driver of offending vehicle is enough to record finding that the driver of the offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident.
9. Herein in the present case, the petitioner/victim while stepping into the witness box as PW1 has narrated the mode and manner of the accident. Driver of the offending vehicle did not come forward to contest or controvert the averments made by the claimant or put his side of version. From unrebutted oral and documentary evidence, it is established from record that petitioners sustained injuries on account of negligent driving of respondent No.1. Hence, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners.
Issue no.2:
FIR no.231/11 PS R. K. Puram Page no. 4/7
10. Now coming to the point of compensation, it is evident from medical record that immediately after accident the petitioner was removed to Safdarjung Hospital where his MLC No.149466 was drawn and injuries were stated to be grievous in nature. The discharge summary of same hospital shows that petitioner remained admitted in the hospital for two days i.e. 05.09.2011 to 07.09.2011 and injuries were diagnosed as head injury with SAH. There is also evidence of post operative treatment of petitioner with various hospital in the form of OPD slips. The petitioner has filed medical bills amounting to Rs.2,376/- however a sum of Rs.5000/- is awarded towards actual and estimated medical expenses as it is common knowledge that even in Government hospital for the treatment of injuries one has to purchase urgent medicines from outside.
11. The injured claimed that at the time of accident he was a driver of TSR and was earning Rs.15000/- per month. No income proof was filed to substantiate monthly earnings. It is undisputed facts that the petitioner was a TSR driver as a alleged accident took place when he was driving TSR. In the absence of any income proof, considering the fact that injured was about 52 years old on the date of accident i.e. 03.09.2011 and the minimum wages of skilled worker which was of Rs.7410/- therefore it can safely be assumed that petitioner might be earning a sum of Rs.7410/- per month. Here in this case though there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner remained immobilized/bed rest for sufficient long time but keeping in view the medical record and treatment given to petitioner it can safely assumed that petitioner must be without job at least for 4-5 months and hence loss of income during treatment comes out to be Rs.37,050/- (Rs.7410 X 5 months) and awarded accordingly.
FIR no.231/11 PS R. K. Puram Page no. 5/7
12. Petitioner is also awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head of conveyance as it is common knowledge that the victim of vehicular accident is required to under take follow up visits to the doctor. Petitioner is awarded Rs.10,000/- for special diet as it is common knowledge that when one suffers injuries or remains ill, is required to take special diet and extra nourishment for recovery. Besides this, the petitioner is also awarded Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
13. In view of discussion above, the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs.92,050/- (5000 + 37,050+ 10,000 + 10,000+ 30,000/-).
Liability:
14. Vikram Singh is the driver and Sh. Amarjeet Singh is the owner. The injured has sustained injuries on account of negligence of Vikram Singh. Therefore driver and owner are joint tort feasors and jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. National Insurance Company is insurer of Sh. Amarjeet Singh, therefore, National Insurance Company is liable to indemnify Sh. Amarjeet Singh regarding compensation to be payable to the petitioner.
Relief
15. Petitioner is awarded to Rs.92,050/-, accordingly award is passed directing the insurance company to pay to the claimant the same and directed to directly deposit the cheque before the Tribunal within 30 days from today and in case of default, penal interest @ 12 % per annum shall be given from the date of delay till the deposit of award amount.
16. On the request of claimant, the bank shall transfer the saving bank account to any other branch of State Bank of India according to his FIR no.231/11 PS R. K. Puram Page no. 6/7 convenience. Claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of saving bank account or fixed deposit account to Manager State Bank of India, Saket Court.
17. The copy of award along with first page of identity showing the identity of claimant be sent to State Bank of India, Saket Court for facilitating the opening of accounts of claimant and for complying with above order. Copy of award be given to the parties. One copy be sent to the insurer.
18. Let for the identification of the petitioner, the first copy of the petition wherein photograph of the petitioner is affixed, be annexed with the award.
19. Award is passed accordingly.
20. File be consigned to record room only after compliance by insurance company by depositing the award in the manner as stated above. Awaiting compliance for 27.10.2012.
Pronounced in the open court
on 27.08.2012 VINEETA GOYAL
PO : MACT (SOUTH-01)
27.08.2012
FIR no.231/11 PS R. K. Puram Page no. 7/7