Delhi District Court
Anupama vs . Manmohan on 28 March, 2013
-:1:-
Anupama vs. Manmohan
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMAR NATH
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
MS. ANUPAMA VS. SH. MAN MOHAN SINGH
M.A.C.P NO 193/11/08
Ms. Anupama
D/o Dr. K.K. Sahni
R/o 110/5, Kabul Line, Delhi Cantt.10
New Delhi.
Through: Advocate S.K. Chauhan
Chamber no. 442, Dwarka Courts, N. Delhi.
........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Shri Man Mohan Singh, Driver
S/o Sh. Harbhajan Singh,
R/o B20, DDA Flalts, Hari Nagar, Ghanta Ghar, N. Delhi
Also at : Vill: Sandha, (Mohalla), Bulandshahar (UP)
2. Sh. Deepak Sangwan S/o S. Dharam Pal Singh, Owner
R/o WZ169/A, Gali no.2, Lajwanti Garden, New Delhi
Also at : Mohan Nagar, Bahadurgarh, (HR) and also at
WZ156, Lajwanti Garden, Gali no. 46, N. Delhi
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd at 7678,
Singh Sabha Road, Near Amba Cinema Road, New Delhi and
Jeevan Bharti Building, 9th Floor, KTowerI,
MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page1 of 20
-:2:-
Anupama vs. Manmohan
Connaught Place, New Delhi
1. Date of institution: 27/04/2011
2. Date of framing of issues: 27/07/2009
3.Date of hearing arguments : 15/03/2013
4. Date of decision: 28/03/2013
AWARD/ JUDGEMENT:
1. The case of the petitioner is that on 14/07/2008 at about 12.30 p.m, Anupama
(petitioner herein) was a pedestrian on service lane near Sanatan Dharm Mandir Sadar Bazar,
Delhi Cantt. when she was hit by the vehicle bearing no. HR38F 4662 (hereinafter the offending
vehicle) being driven by Respondent no.1 (in short R1) at a very high speed in rash & negligent
manner in contravention of the traffic rules. Due to the impact of the hit, she fell down on the road and started vomiting. From the place of accident she was removed to Safdarjung hospital in PCR Van for treatment. After having been given the 1 st aid treatment she was taken to Mata Chanan Devi hospital, Janakpuri for further treatment. The vehicle in question was owned by Respondent no.2 (in short R2) which was insured with Respondent no.3 (in short R3). 2 Pursuant to service of the notice, R1 and R2 failed to put an appearance in the proceedings , therefore, they were proceeded exparte on 27.07.2009 and 18.11.2008 respectively. However, this petition was resisted by the insurance company/R3 after filing a written statement wherein denied the factum and manner of the accident pleading that accident did occur due to contributory negligence as is apparent and evident and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. However, it has been admitted that the vehicle in MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page2 of 20 -:3:- Anupama vs. Manmohan question was insured in the name of R2 vide policy no. 271500/31/2000/344 which was valid during the period from 17.04.2008 to 16.04.2009 subject to the terms and condition of the policy issued. An exorbitant amount is claimed without any justification.
3. On the basis of pleadings of parties, issues were framed on 27/07/2009.
4. Having heard the rival contentions advanced on behalf of both the sides and after perusing the material including the evidence on record, my issue wise findings are as under. ISSUE NO 1 (in both the petitions) Whether the petitioners had sustained injuries on his person in an accident which took place on 14.07.2008 due to negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration NO. HR38F4662 being driven in the negligent manner by Respondent no.1, owned by Respondent no.2 and insured with Respondent no.3? ..OPP
5. The onus to prove the issue was on the petitioner. In order to discharge the same, petitioner examined herself through affidavit Ex PW1/1. She during the course of her deposition had narrated the sequence of the accident in paragraph 2 of her affidavit. Her deposition had not been controverted by R1 & R2 as they chose to stay away from the proceedings and did not put any question on the aspect of negligence. However, she was crossexamined on behalf of the insurance company but nothing adverse material came out during her cross examination so as to discredit the version given on record by her regarding the manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven. Moreover, she was the natural eye witness being the injured of the accident and thus, her statement has to be relied upon.
MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page3 of 20
-:4:-
Anupama vs. Manmohan
6. The accident had taken place on 14/07/2008 at about 12.30 p.m. The FIR Ex. CW 1/B bearing no. 257/08 u/s 279/337 IPC was registered with P.S Delhi Cantt. on the same very date. It is well settled law that in a case of accident claim, the claimant is not required to prove her case to the hilt. In the present case R1 was the best persons to state as to why he had been Challanned vide charge sheet Ex.CW 1/J to face the trial. Site plan Ex. PA showing the manner of the accident. MLC Ex. PB, Mechanical Inspection report of the offending vehicle is Ex.PC and Arrest memo Ex. PD was prepared by the investigation officer vide which R1 was arrested. These documents are sufficient to establish the factum of the accident.
7. The standard of proof in a claim petition is not as rigid and as high , as is in a criminal case. In a criminal case proof beyond reasonable doubt is required , however, in a claim petition it is not so.
8. In Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Raod Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SC 5 13, it has been observed that in a road accident, the strict principles of poof as in a criminal case are not attracted. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: "15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page4 of 20
-:5:-
Anupama vs. Manmohan
9. The aforesaid proposition of law has again upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2011) 10 Having regards to these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioners have been able to establish that accident did take place due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle on the given date, time and place.
11 Issue No.1 is decided in favor of the petitioner accordingly. ISSUE NO 2 In Case, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner, to what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled and from whom? .....OPP
12. As issue no.1 is decided in favor of the petitioners in affirmative and hence, petitioners are entitled for the compensation. Quantum of the compensation, however, is required to be calculated.
13. It has been held in a catena of judgments by Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts that emphasis in cases of personal injury and fatal accident should be on awarding substantial, just and fair compensation and not a token amount. It has been held in a number of judgments that general principle in calculating such sum of compensation, should be so as to put the injured or legal heirs of a deceased in case of fatal accident, in the same position as he would have been, if accident had not taken place. In examining the question of damages for personal injury, pecuniary or nonpecuniary damages are required to be taken into account.
MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page5 of 20
-:6:-
Anupama vs. Manmohan
14. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi V/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 that: "Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas nonpecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far as nonpecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters ie. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit ; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, ie. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
15. In view of above, in order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads as delineated above by Hon'ble Apex Court.
(a) MEDICINES
AND TREATMENT
MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page6 of 20
-:7:-
Anupama vs. Manmohan
16. Petitioner in her affidavit Ex PW1/1 had averred that after the accident she fell down on the road and started vomiting and she was removed to Safdarjung Hospital for treatment where her MLC Ex. PB was prepared. Due to her serious condition, she was shifted to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital for further management. She took the treatment as indoor patient during the period 14.07.2008 to 19.07.2008. PW 3 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Medical Record Clerk Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri produced the treatment record including the discharge slip and the details of the bills raised. Discharge summary slip is Ex. PW 3/1 and final bill amounting to Rs.56,176/ is proved as Ex. PW 3/2 and medical treatment record running into 77 pages is Ex. PW 3/3.
PW 4 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Medical Record Incharge, Indian Spinal Injuries Centre , Vasant Kunj deposed that petitioner was treated in hospital. She remained admitted during the period 24.03.2009 to 28.03.2009 ( 5 days). Consolidated bills is proved Ex. PW 4/1 and break up of that bill stands proved Ex. PW 4/2. He also deposed that the patient was earlier remained admitted in the hospital on 11.09.2008 to 24.11.2008 and consolidated bill is Ex. PW 4/3 and break up of that bill is Ex. PW 4/4. Ex. PW 4/5 is the OPD card. He further stated the photostate copy of the estimated bill bearing no. 2760 dated 16.09.2008 regarding the patient Anupama which stands proved Ex. PW 4/PX. Final bill amounting to Rs.85,633/ already Ex. PW 4/3 which was received from the patient against the estimated bill Rs.96,525/. The bill Ex. PW 4/PY relating to the period from 09.11.2008 to 15.12.2008. Discharge slip is proved Ex. PW 4/1.
17. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page7 of 20 -:8:- Anupama vs. Manmohan petitioner has got the reimbursement of the bills amounting to Rs.1,50,000/ from the office of her mother who is a government employee. If the amount of the two final bills is calculated then it comes to Rs.1, 41, 809/. ( Rs.56,176/ + Rs.85,633/).
18. Perusal of record, it reveals that petitioner did take place on record the bills of his treatment amounting to Rs.1,41,809/ . She must have spent over and above the amount of Medical bills proved as per the nature of injuries sustained in an accident but it cannot be ignored that her mother has got the reimbursement from her department of the medical bills with regard to the treatment expenses of her daughter. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances. it is difficult for this Tribunal to pass any amount of compensation towards medicines and treatment.
19. Now the question remains to be decided with regard the earning of the deceased. Principle has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering amount of compensation, future prospective income must have to be taken into account on the basis of age and income of the deceased.
20. Before proceedings further, let me quote couple of relevant judgments:
In 2012 ACJ 583(SC)titled 'Mohan Soni v/s Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors.', their lordships were pleased to make the following observations:
"The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle rickshawpuller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page8 of 20 -:9:- Anupama vs. Manmohan loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effect on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of any of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cyclerickshawpuller".
21. In Pati Ram Vs. Kushal Pal Singh reported in 2010 ACJ 1481 it has been held that ; Quantum - Injury Leg Amputation of both legs resulting in permanent disability of 85 % in relation to left lower limb and 70 per cent in relation to right lower limb Tribunal assessed loss of earning capacity at 85 per cent and taking income on the basis of minimum wages awarded Rs 5,59,062 towards loss of income due to permanent disability , Rs 10,000/ towards medical expenses , Rs 15,000/ conveyance and speical diet and Rs 1,00,000/ for pain and suffering Appellate court fixed loss of earning capacity at 100 per cent and observing that minimum wages is not akin to future prospects computed loss of income due to permanent disability at Rs 9,86, 580/ plus awarded Rs 1,08,000/ towards conveyance , Rs 1,50,000/ towards pain and suffering Rs 1,00,000/ towards loss of amenities and Rs 50,000/ towards disfiguration Award enhanced from Rs 6,84,062 to Rs 13,94,580/.
In Gulam Nabi Bhat vs. Md. Arman Ali & Ors, MAC. App.335/2009 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi decided on 07/08/2012, his Lordship was pleased to make following observations
14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical of functional MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page9 of 20 -:10:- Anupama vs. Manmohan disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as inn the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand.
Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity."
(c) LOSS OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DISABILITY : 22 PW1 during the course of his deposition had stated that she was working as
beautician and self employed at Shagoon Beauty Parlour and Training Centre, Raghu Nagar, New Delhi. She used to earn Rs.4000/ per month. PW 2 Ms. Shobha Nand deposed about the employment with her at a monthly salary of Rs.4000/ per month. She proved the salary certificate Ex. PW 2/1 by identifying her signatures at point A. Though she did not produce the MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page10 of 20 -:11:- Anupama vs. Manmohan record of the joining of the petitioner with her but it would not loose its credence particularly in view of her statement on oath. It needs to be noticed that Insurance company had enough time to verify the genuineness of the averments made in the claim petition which was supported by the documents. In the absence of any rebuttal, the statement of the petitioner with regard to her salary and nature of job has to be accepted more particularly when it finds corroboration in the statement of PW 2 Ms.Shobha Nanda. Even otherwise, minimum wages of an matriculate person were Rs.4081/ as on 01.02.2008 which covers the period of accident i.e. 14.07.2008. It is stated that due to the injuries sustained in an accident she was found to have old fracture superior and inferior public ramie right side with limitation of left ankle and right hip movements with 30% of permanent disability in relation of both lower limb and thus, she became unemployed being permanent disabled person. She is not in a position to stand properly to perform the work of beautician . An addition of 30% in his income on account of inflation to compute the loss of future earning capacity i.e. Rs.4000/ + 30% which comes to Rs. 5200/ (Rs.4000/ + Rs.1200).
Relevant paragraph 19 of the Judgment Gulam Nabi vs. Md. Arman Ali & Ors. (SUPRA) is hereby reproduced: This Court in Rakhi vs. Satish Kumar & Ors (MAC. APP.
390/2011) decided on 16.07.2012, referred to the reports of the Supreme Court in General lManager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors.(1994) 2 SCC 176, Sarla Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav. (1996) 3 SCC 179, Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidya Dar Dutta & Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 242, Sarla Verma & Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559 and held that as per Santosh Devi even in the absence of any evidence as to future MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page11 of 20 -:12:- Anupama vs. Manmohan prospects an increase of 30% in the income has to be provided where the victim had fixed income or was a self employed.
23 Besides this, petitioner has proved a disability certificate Ex. PW1/1 by examining PW 5 Dr. S.K. Sharma, Unit Head Orthopedics, DDU Hospital, New Delhi. According to Doctor, she was found to have old fracture superior and inferior public ramie right side with limitation of left anckle and right hip movements with 30% of permanent disability in relation of both lower limb. No question was put to the Doctor despite availing the opportunity of crossexamination Due to permanent disability the patient would be unable to run or climb stairs and such like other acts. Her day to day activities have been affected as she was a beautician by profession at the time of accident and hence, her disability is total.
24 As regards the age of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has relied upon the Matric certificate Ex. PX wherein her date of birth finds mentioned as 07/01/182 which finds corroboration in the PAN Card Ex. PY. If the age of the petitioner is calculated on that basis then it came to 26 years plus. An operative multiplier shall be '17' as per the judgment of Sarla Verma v/s DTC & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. Considering the disability certificate issued by the doctor wherein the disability has been stated as 30% and hence, compensation is granted Rs. 5200X30X17X12 /100 by applying the ratio of the judgment passed by our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Gulam Nabi Bhat Vs. Md. Arman & Ors (SUPRA) after relying upon the judgment of Apex Court passed in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Yadav 2011 ACJ(SC)wherein their Lordships have pleased to make the following observations.
MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page12 of 20
-:13:-
Anupama vs. Manmohan
The provision of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequence, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensation for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. 25 I, therefore, award a sum of Rs.3,18,240/to the petitioner towards loss of earnings due to disability. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors MAC. APP. No. 493/2012 decided on 07.05.2012 (DHC) is relied upon.
d) PAIN & SUFFERING: 26 Pain and suffering is covered under non pecuniary damages. To calculate the same, nature of injuries sustained by the injured, duration during which he got the medical treatment and was confined to bed, are some of the factors which are required to be taken into account.
MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page13 of 20
-:14:-
Anupama vs. Manmohan
27. In the present case, it is apparent from the medical record proved by petitioner that she had sustained multiple injuries. She was found to have old fracture superior and inferior public ramie right side with limitation of left ankle and right hip movements while ascertaining the disability of permanent in nature The mental agony which the petitioner might have undergone at the time of accident cannot be equated or quantified in terms of money. Physical pain which the petitioner must have undergone during the course of treatment would have been immense.
28. To compensate the petitioner under this head, I award a sum of Rs.50,000/ to the petitioner for pain and suffering.
e) CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET :
29. PW1 during the course of her deposition has failed to depose the amount spent by her on conveyance and special diet , however considering the nature of injuries sustained by her. She would have paid repeated visits to the hospital / doctor for her follow up treatment incurring expenses on conveyance which is apparent from the OPD card. Ex. PW 4/5. She must have required to take special diet to recover from the injuries sustained by her. I, therefore, award a sum of Rs 25,000/ to the petitioner towards Conveyance and special diet.
30. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and nature of evidence following amount shall be just compensation:
MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page14 of 20
-:15:-
Anupama vs. Manmohan
1 Loss of earning on
account of disability : Rs 3, 18, 240/
2. Pain and Suffering : Rs. 50,000/
3. Special Diet & Conveyance : Rs. 25,000/
4. Loss of amenities : Rs 25,000/
___________________________________________________________ Total : Rs. 4,18,240/ (Rupees Four lacs, Eighteen thousand, two hundred and forty only) INTEREST
31. The Petition was filed on 13.10. .2008. There is nothing on record to withhold the interest. Petition is awarded interest at the rate of 7.5 % from the date of filing the petitions till the realization.
LIABLITITY
32. Ld. counsel for the insurance company laid much stress contending that since the insured has failed to produce original licence of the driver (R1) despite the service of notice u/s 12 rule 8 CPC, thus, the court can presume that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid licence. To support his contention, he relied upon the testimony of V.D Talwar, Administrative Officer who examined himself as R3W1 through affidavit Ex. R3W1/A. During the course of his deposition, he proved the insurance policy of the offending vehicle along with the terms and conditions as R3W1/1. He further stated that a notice under order 12 rule 8 CPC was issued to R1 and R2 (driver and owner MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page15 of 20 -:16:- Anupama vs. Manmohan respectively) to produce the original valid and effective driving licence. Copy of the notice is Ex R3W1/5, postal receipts are Ex. R3W1/6 and UPC receipt is Ex.R3W1/7. Envelope containing notice u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC sent to driver by the speed post and UPC received back undelivered as Ex. R3W1/8( 3 envelopes collectively). It is further stated that the said notice was neither replied nor responded. R3W2 Sh. Manisha Trivedi License Clerk, ARTO Office, Bulandshahar U.P produced the record pertaining to the D/L bearing no. T5963 which was issued in the name of Sh.Ramesh Chander S/o Sh. Harish Chander R/o Najimpur, Bulandshahar, UP on 17.12.2003 which was valid up to 23.03.2010. It is specifically deposed that the D/L as detailed above was not issued in the name of Manmohan Singh S/o Sh. Harbhajan Singh, R/o Mohalla Satha, Buland shahar U.P. He confirmed the verification report relating to D/L no. T5963 already Ex. R3W1/3 by identifying his handwriting.
R3W2 Sh. Harsh, Clerk from the RTO Office Jhajjar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana who deposed about the permit bearing no. 957/NP/07 relating to the offending vehicle which stands in the name of Deepak S/o Dharam Pal. It was valid for Delhi, U.P., Chandigarh and Haryana. This permit was valid for Delhi w.e.f 02.05.2007 to 24.04.2008 which was a renewed for 12.05.2008 to 24.04.2009 and it was further renewed from 29.07.2009 to 25.04.2010 and lastly it was renewed from 26.04.2010 to 25.04.2011 for Delhi, U.P and Chandigarh. It is further argued that since the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and accordingly, the insurance company can not be held liable for payment of any amount of compensation.
MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page16 of 20
-:17:-
Anupama vs. Manmohan
33. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs G.Mohd. Vani & Ors.,2004 A.C.J. 1424 :
2004 (3) T.A.C. 890, and National Insurance Co. Ltd V. Gadigawwa & Ors., 2005 A.C.J. 40:2005 (2) T.A.C.171, wherein it was held that : If the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid diving licence, then the Insurance Company after paying the compensation amount would be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It was submitted that no interference was called for with the judgment and order of the High Court impugned in the Special Leave Petition.
34. In National Insurance Company limited Vs. Rani & others 2006 ACJ 1224, it was held as under: Regular driver engaged by owner entrusted the vehicle to mechanic who after carrying out repairs took the vehicle for test drive and caused accident - Insurance company disputed its liability on the ground that mechanic had no valid licence - Whether insurance company is liable to pay compensation to third parties and then recover the amount from the owner - Held: yes. [2001 ACJ 843 (SC) and 2003 ACJ 611 (SC) followed]
35. After applying the ratio of judgments (supra), the defence sought to be raised by the insurance company u/s 149 of Motor Vehicle Act stands established that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of the contract as the insured MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page17 of 20 -:18:- Anupama vs. Manmohan did not have valid licence to drive the same.
36. Having regard the twin interest of petitioner who is a third party in this case and that of the insurance company and coupled with the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with respondent no 3, it would be appropriate to direct the insurance company/R3 to compensate the petitioner in terms of awarded amount with the liberty to recover subsequently from respondents no 1 & 2.
37. Recovery rights are,accordingly, granted to insurance company against respondent no 1 &2.
38. Issue No.2 is decided in favor of the petitioner accordingly. ISSUE NO. 3
Relief
39. In this petition, a sum of Rs. 4,18,240/ (Rupees Four lacs, Eighteen thousand, two hundred and forty only) with interest is awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents
40. The awarded amount be deposited by R3 in the account of the petitioner bearing no. 0112000104773693 with Punjab National Bank, Gopinath Bazar Branch, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation ( with proof of notice to the claimant & her counsel) to the Nazir of this Court. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, SBI Branch is directed to release half of the amount with interest to the MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page18 of 20 -:19:- Anupama vs. Manmohan petitioner by transferring the same to her Saving Bank Account after keeping the remaining amount in a fixed deposit for a period of 2 years.
41. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposit shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the respective Savings Account of the beneficiary.
42. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the beneficiary after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo Identity Card to the beneficiary to facilitate identity.
43. No cheque book shall be issued to the beneficiary without the permission of this Court.
44. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in the safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the beneficiary along with the photocopy of the FDR. Upon the expiry of the period of FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in the Savings Account of the beneficiary.
45. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the prior permission of this court.
46. On the request of the beneficiary, Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch according to their convenience.
47. The beneficiary shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account.
48. R3 shall inform the petitioners through registered post that the cheque of the MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page19 of 20 -:20:- Anupama vs. Manmohan awarded amount are being deposited so as to facilitate them to collect their respective cheque.
49. Copy of the award be supplied to both the parties at free of cost. Copy of this award be sent to the Nodal Officer of the Bank with Court stamped photographs of the claimant and her signatures along with identity proof documents.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (AMAR NATH)
DATED: 28/03/2013. PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
ALL PAGES SIGNED
MACP No 193/11/2008 Anupama vs. Man Mohan Page20 of 20