Delhi District Court
Ravi Ranjan Kumar vs Iqbal S/O Sh. Abdul Hassan on 19 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. VINEETA GOYAL: PO-MACT (SOUTH-01)
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
INJURY CASE
Suit no. : 291/08
Unique Case ID no. : 02403C0749222007
IN THE MATTER OF :-
1 Ravi Ranjan Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Amir Mandal,
Village & P.O- Jogiara, P.S-Jale,
Distt. Darbhanga, Bihar. -------------------- Petitioner
Versus
1 Iqbal S/o Sh. Abdul Hassan,
Village & P.O, P.S- Chandausi,
Distt. Muradabad, U.P -------------------Driver
2 Sh. Kundan Lal
S/o Guru Duttamal, RZ-655,
Sri Nagar Sakur Basti, Rani Bagh, Delhi-34. -------------------Owner
3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
C-2, Mahavir Bhawan, Karampura Comm. Complex,
New Delhi-110015. -------------------Insurer
-------------- Respondents
Date of first institution : 02.11.2007
Date of institution
in the present court : 02.11.2007
Date of arguments : 19.05.2012
Date of order : 19.05.2012
Suit no.291/08 Page no. 1/7
Appearance:- Sh. Uday Shankar, counsel for petitioner.
Respondent no. 1 and 2 ex-parte.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta and Ms. Lalita Bajaj, counsel for insurance company/R3.
JUDGEMENT/AWARD
1. The aforesaid claim petition u/s 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (herein called the Act) was filed by petitioner Sh. Ravi Ranjan Kumar against the R1/driver, R2/ owner and R3/insurance company on account of injuries sustained in accident occurred on 29.06.2007 in a motor vehicular accident.
2. Brief facts as averred in the petition are that on 29.06.2007 at about 17.30 hours the injured/petitioner was going towards his house situated at Vasant Vihar on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-5SU-4796 and driving the motorcycle by obeying traffic rules and he was on the extreme left side of the road near Olof Palme Marg, in the meanwhile one oil tanker bearing registration no. DL-1GB-4566 being driven by respondent no.1 recklessly and in rash and negligent manner without taking any precaution, in contravention of the traffic rules dashed the petitioner's motorcycle from behind. As a result of which the victim fell down on the road along with his motorcycle and sustained severe injuries and removed to hospital for his treatment and thereafter an FIR No. 279/2007 u/s 279/337 IPC was registered with P.S. Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
3. In response to notice of the petition, respondent no. 1 and 2 appeared however, in subsequent proceedings failed to mark their appearance and were proceeded ex-parte on 15.04.2008. Written statement was filed by insurance company interalia denied their liability however, admitted that alleged offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1GB-4566 was insured in the name of Sh. Kundan Lal, respondent no. 2/owner vide policy no. 311700/31/06/05/00003363 valid from 11.10.2006 to 10.10.2007
4. From the pleadings on record of the parties, following issues were framed by the then Ld. Presiding Officer vide order dated 18.12.2008:-
ISSUES
1. Whether petitioner Ravi Ranjan Kumar had received injuries due to an accident on 29.06.2007, at about 5:30 PM near Olof Palme Marg Paschim Suit no.291/08 Page no. 2/7 Marg crossing, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck no. DL-1GB-4566 by R1, the vehicle owned by R2 and insured with R3 insurance company? OPP
2. The amount of compensation petitioner is entitled to? OPP
3. Relief
5. In order to prove its case, petitioner himself stepped into witness box as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavits as Ex.PW1/A and testified on the lines of affidavit and stated that the alleged accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 and due to the said accident he sustained bodily injuries in which his stomach was badly damaged and remained bed ridden for more than six months and remained out of work for more than a year. He further stated that he was in service with A.G Associates, Gurgaon with a monthly salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month. He spend Rs. 20,000/- on medicines, Rs. 10,000/- on conveyance and special diet and nursing and thus suffered monetary loss of approximately Rs. 50,000/- on account of non-working.
6. In defence, insurance company examined Sh. Manohar Lal, Assistant Legal Department as R3W1. He proved copy of insurance policy, notice issued u/o 12 rule 8 of CPC to insured/respondent no.2 for producing driving licence, permit and other related documents of vehicle bearing no. DL-1GB-4566. He further stated that the policy related to hazardous goods with vehicle weight as 25000 kg with ten tyres whereas as per their investigator report, the erring driver was holding driving license which was valid for heavy goods vehicle (HGV). The erring driver was not in possession of valid driving license for driving vehicle containing hazardous goods. The insurance company also examined R3W2 Sh. Iqbal from AAR GEE ASSOCIATES, (Investigator). He proved verification report obtained from licensing authority RTA Barailly, UP and stated that driver namely Sh. Iqbal was holding a license valid for heavy goods vehicle(HGV) but not for hazardous goods.
7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. My issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue No.1
8. In order to prove his case, injured/petitioner stepped into witness box as PW-1 Suit no.291/08 Page no. 3/7 and has reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. He stated that on 29.06.07 at about 17.30 hours when he was reached near Olof Palme Marg to his house, offending vehicle being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and hit him, as a result he sustained grevious injuries. Neither of the respondents led any evidence to the contrary nor anything could be brought on record to discredit the testimony of petitioner. It is trite and settled law that while dealing with claim petitions, the tribunal is not to follow strict rule of procedures because the proceedings under this act are summary inquiry in nature. 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. Herein this case the petitioner has placed on record the certified copies of criminal case record which includes FIR, MLC, Registration certificate of offending vehicle, certificate of insurance of offending vehicle, seizure memo of DL, site plan, mechanical inspection report, arrest memo etc. All these documents are sufficient proof to come to the conclusion that driver/first respondent was negligent. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is sufficiently proved that respondent no.1 caused the accident in which victim sustained injuries. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue no. 2
9. Since issue No. 1 has been decided in favour of the petitioner, so petitioner is entitled to compensation.
Medical Expenses:
10. The medical record filed by claimant suggests that immediately after the accident, petitioner was taken to Safdarjung Hospital where his MLC report was drawn and in the column of nature of injuries it was mentioned as "simple". However, there are medical treatment record in the form of OPD slips of same hospital revealing that petitioner has sustained grevious injuries fracture pubic rami leg in the accident occurred on 29.06.2007. The medical record also suggests that petitioner further took treatment from Majida Hospital, Delhi. The petitioner has placed on record medical bills of Rs. 3,502/-.
Suit no.291/08 Page no. 4/7Loss of income
11. So far as the submissions of petitioner loss of income during treatment is concerned, the petitioner claimed to be an adult of 20 years of age with good health and physique and was doing private job with A.G Associates Gurgaon with a monthly salary of Rs. 4,500/-. He further claimed that he was adviced bed rest for a year and could not pursue his job during that period and was without pay, thus suffered financial loss. The scanning of evidence adduced by the petitioner shows that except the statement of petitioner that there is nothing on record to substantiate the plea raised by him. No medical expert has been examined by the claimant to prove the period of immobilization. Further there is nothing on record to suggest that he remained admitted in the hospital after the accident. He might have been discharged after giving treatment. Medical record shows that there are OPD slips showing grevious injuries. There is no prescription slip revealing that petitioner was advised bed rest for a year and in the absence of any cogent and convincing proof regarding income and keeping in view the nature of injuries a lump sum of Rs. 8,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during treatment.
Pain and sufferings, Conveyance charges and special diet:
12. Besides the aforesaid amount petitioner is also entitled for Rs 20,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000 for special diet and Rs. 10,000 for conveyance.
13. In view of discussion above the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of (Rs. 3,502 + 8,000 + 20,000+ 10,000 + 10,000)= 51,502/-.
Relief:-
14. Accordingly, a compensation of Rs.51,502/-(inclusive of interim award if any) is awarded to petitioner with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 02.11.2007 till its realisation.
LIABILITY:-
15. Counsel for insurance company disputed its liability on the grounds that first respondent was holding driving license authorized for heavy goods vehicle whereas at the relevant time the vehicle in question was hazardous goods carrying vehicle (oil tanker). The Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, Rule 9 prescribes the driver of the offending vehicle should not only possess a valid driving license for driving heavy goods vehicle Suit no.291/08 Page no. 5/7 but there are set of other conditions such as knowledge of regional language, English, undergo a training etc. The rules further provides that after completing these eligible conditions such driver shall make an application before Transport Authority for making an endorsement permitting him to drive vehicles carrying hazardous goods. The counsel for insurance company submitted that there is no such endorsement on the driving license of first respondent for giving permission to drive vehicle containing hazardous goods in this regard. In the absence of such endorsement, it can be held that the erring driver/respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question. The policy issued to the offending vehicle was subject to a condition that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of accident. As discussed above, the respondent no.1 was not holding an effective driving license, there is breach of fundamental conditions and terms of the policy committed by the owner of the offending vehicle. In view of the settled law that insurance company is liable qua third party and it shall however, vest with a right to recover the amount of liability from the insured after depositing the compensation amount to the third party, hence, the insurance company has a right to recover the same from respondent no.2 in whose name the vehicle is registered.
16. Respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to directly deposit the cheques with SBI Bank, Saket Courts complex branch within 30 days from today and in case of default, penal interest @ 12 % per annum shall be given from the date of filing of delay till deposit of the awarded amount on the account of petitioner.
17. On deposit of award amount, 40 % of award in respect of petitioner shall be credited in his saving bank account and rest of the amount shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit Account for two years.
18. Interest on aforesaid fixed deposit be credited automatically monthly in the saving bank account of the respective petitioner.
19. Withdrawal from the aforesaid saving bank account shall be permitted to claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity card to claimant to facilitate identity.
20. No cheque book be issued to claimant without the permission of this court.
21. The original fixed deposit account book shall be retained by the Bank in the safe Suit no.291/08 Page no. 6/7 custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to claimants along with the photocopy of the FD account book/receipt.
22. On maturity, the FDR amount shall be directly credited in the saving bank account of the petitioner. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit account without the permission of this court. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this court.
23. On the request of claimant the Bank shall transfer the Saving Account to any other branch of SBI, Saket Court according to his convenience.
24. Claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account in bank.
25. 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.
26. Award is passed accordingly. File be consigned to record room only after compliance by insurance company by depositing the award in the manner as stated above. Be awaited for compliance for 18.07.2012.
Announced in the open court
on 19.05.2012 VINEETA GOYAL
PO : MACT (SOUTH-01)
19.05.2012
Suit no.291/08 Page no. 7/7