Delhi District Court
Ayodhya Prasad Yadav vs . Manpreet Singh & Ors on 19 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN:
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT/ SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Suit No. 50/12
FIR No:13/2010
PS: H.N. Din
Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Vs. Manpreet Singh & ors
Injury Case
Sh. Ayodhya Prasad Yadav S/o Sh. Badri Prasad Yadav
R/o H. No. F1/16, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
........................... Petitioner/Claimant
Versus
1. Manpreet Singh S/o Sh. Mahendra Pal Singh (driver)
R/o A103, IInd floor, Lajpat NagarI, New Delhi
2. Sh. Dharamvir Dhama S/o Sh. Man Singh (owner)
R/o House No. 1007, Sector49, Sainik Colony, Faridabad, Haryana
...........................Respondents
Date of Institution : 10.05.2010 Date of reserving the judgment : 18.09.2014 Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2014 Judgment:
1. Present claim proceedings initiated on the basis of accident information report (AIR) filed by the police on 10.05.2010.
Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Vs. Manpreet Singh & ors. suit no. 50/12 (Pg 1 of 12)
2. During proceedings on 09.12.2010 driver Manpreet Singh appeared through his counsel, but Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also sought time for filing separate claim petition. Ld. Counsel for the driver Manpreet Singh raised objection before this Tribunal on 09.02.2011 that in AIR report police has wrongly mentioned Manpreet Singh as owner of the offending vehicle, thereafter IO was summoned. On 02.07.2011 IO/ASI Bhrampal Singh submitted before this court that offending vehicle was not registered in the name of Manpreet Singh.
3. A separate claim petition u/s 166/140 MV Act was filed by the petitioner on 25.01.2012 and the same was tagged with the present AIR proceedings vide order dated 25.01.2012 by my Ld. Predecessor. No appearance were received on behalf of R2 and R3, therefore they were proceeded exparte by my Ld. Predecessor on 17.05.2012, however WS was filed by R1 on 17.05.2012.
4. Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner is that on 29.05.2010 at around 09.40 pm, petitioner driving his motorcycle make Hero Honda bearing registration no. DL 35AH 5042 after following all traffic rules and regulations when reached defence colony Lala Lajpat Marg flyover offending LML scooter bearing no. HR 51D 0539 driven by R1 in rash and negligent manner came from wrong side at fast and violent speed and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner due to which he fell down, thus suffered grievous injuries on the head as well as other parts of the body, thereafter immediately removed to Moolchand hospital then to Holy family hospital.
5. On 29.01.2010, vide DD no. 32 PP at Jangpura, an information regarding the Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Vs. Manpreet Singh & ors. suit no. 50/12 (Pg 2 of 12) present accident was received at around 09.45 pm, thereafter ASI Bhrampal reached the spot where he found one Hero Honda motorcycle and LMN scooter lying in accidental condition. On inquiry, found that injured persons were taken to hospital, therefore he took photographs of spot from private camera but not found any eye witness, then left to Moolchand hospital where doctor on inquiry told him that two injured persons came to him and after firstaid both without further treatment left the hospital, thereafter ASI went AIIMS trauma centre where also he did not met any injured. During inquiry he found that injured was admitted at Batra hospital then IO went to Batra hospital where he found that injured Ayodhya Prasad admitted in ICU but not found fit for statement and no eye witness was found at the spot, thereafter an FIR No. 13/2010 u/s 279/337 PS Hazrat Nizamuddin.
6. During investigation, IO prepared the site plan of occurrence, seized offending LML scooter as well as motorcycle, conducted their mechanical inspection, recorded the statement of injured Ayodhya Prasad arrested respondent no.1 Manpreet Singh and directed him to produce his driving license but he unable to produce the license, thus added offfence u/s 3/181 MV Act. IO during investigation also took opinion over the nature of injuries from Batra hospital. As per the opinion of Batra hospital the injuries were found to be grievous, therefore offence u/s 338 IPC was added. IO also collected discharge summary during investigation from Batra hospital. IO during investigation also directed the driver to produce the RC and in insurance policy but he unable to produce the same, therefore added offence u/s 39/192 and 146/196 MV Act. On completion of investigation chargesheeted the R1 for the commission of Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Vs. Manpreet Singh & ors. suit no. 50/12 (Pg 3 of 12) offence u/s 279/338 MV Act.
7. ACP (MACT) also filed the report before my Ld. Predecessor dated 20.09.2011 stating therein that registered owner of the offending LMN scooter is one Sh. Dharamvir Dhama who was not found to be residing at House No. B94, Sector49, Faridabad, IO contacted him, further served notice u/s 133 MV Act and bounded owner to appear before the Tribunal on 21.09.2011.
8. Despite being bound down R2 owner did not appear before this Tribunal, therefore owner Dharamvir was proceeded exparte.
9. From pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 17.05.2012.
(1.) Whether the petitioner received grievous injuries in an accident which took place on 29.01.2010 at about 09.45 pm involving offending vehicle Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing no. DL 35AH 5042 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no. 3 (insurance company) ? OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?
(3) Relief.
10. During proceedings, offending vehicle found not uninsured.
11. During evidence petitioner examined himself as PW1. Driver Manpreet Singh Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Vs. Manpreet Singh & ors. suit no. 50/12 (Pg 4 of 12) examined himself as R1W1, R1W2 Jatin Sethi and R1W3 Mehtab Singh Kapoor. R2 owner remained exparte and not led any evidence.
12. After hearing arguments and considering the material on record, my issue wise findings are as follows: Issue no. 1 (Negligence)
13. Petitioner Ayodhya Prasad in his affidavit of evidence (Ex. PW1/A) stated that he suffered grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1, who was driving the offending LML scooter at the time of accident and came from the wrong side at fast speed. His statement is duly corroborated by police investigation. Police during investigation also found respondent no.1 driving the LML scooter in rash and negligent manner, hence chargesheeted him for commission of offence u/s 279/338 IPC.
14. Driver Manpreet Singh (R1) also tendered his affidavit of evidence as (R1W1/B). In his affidavit evidence stated that he is neither owner nor the driver of the alleged offending vehicle and merely a passerby at the place of accident, and due to the accident of the petitioner with scooterist he also suffered minor injuries and his MLC was prepared at Moolchand hospital. He further stated that he went to Moolchand hospital himself and falsely implicated by the police after three months without proper investigation. He also deposed that on 16.03.2010 he was summoned and arrested by the police, and not at all involved in the alleged accident. To corroborate his statement R1 also examined R1W2 Jatin Sethi and R1W3 Mehtab Singh Kapoor. R1W3 Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Vs. Manpreet Singh & ors. suit no. 50/12 (Pg 5 of 12) Mehtab Singh Kapoor deposed that on that day he was strolling with Manpreet Singh, and in that said accident Manpreet Singh also sustained minor injuries. R1W2 also stated on the same lines.
15. R1, R1W2 and R1W3 all deposed that R1 suffered injuries on the date of accident, but stated that he was not driving the scooter, only taking stroll at the place of accident with and R1W3. It is worth to be noticed that R1W3 Mehtab Singh uncle of the driver Manpreet Singh not stated anything about the prsences of R1W2 Jatin Sethi neither Jatin Sethi talked about the presence of R1W3 Mehtab Singh alongwith the driver Manpreet Singh at the time of accident. Manpreet Singh in his affidavit of evidence (Ex. R1W1/B) also not stated that at the time of accident he was taking stroll with R1W3 only stated that he was the passerby. It is also not clear from his testimony that how as a passerby suffered injuries due to the accident caused between the motorcycle and the scooter. He categorically admitted that his MLC was also prepared at Moolchand hospital. It appears somewhat incredible if a passerby suffered minor injuries as stated by R1W3 then why he went to Moolchand hospital for preparation of MLC. Furthermore, R1 has not lodged any complaint against police for false implication. There is nothing came on record to show why the R1 is falsely implicated by the police in the present case, whereas from the evidence led by R1, it is confirmed that said accident took place at the place of occurrence as mentioned by petitioner, therefore whatever the discrepancies pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the respondent over place of occurrence becomes irrelevant.
Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Vs. Manpreet Singh & ors. suit no. 50/12 (Pg 6 of 12)
16. Ld. counsel for the driver during arguments found various inconsistency in the statement of the petitioner recorded during investigation and over treatment he received at various hospitals, but these discrepancies in present proceedings do not affect the case of the petitioner, particularly in the circumstances when R1 himself admitted that he was present at the spot and suffered injuries in the said accident. No plausible explanation was made by driver why he was falsely implicated in present case.
17. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Basant Kaur & Ors Vs. Chattar Pal Singh and Ors" [2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB)], wherein it has been held that registration of a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle is enough to record the finding that the driver of offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident. Further it has been held in catena of cases that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings as in civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. I am also being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "National Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana" (2009 ACJ 287), wherein it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Vs. Manpreet Singh & ors. suit no. 50/12 (Pg 7 of 12) be constructed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
18. From the entire evidence on record the petitioner's version appears more credible than that of R1, hence petitioner able to prove that he suffered accidental injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1 driver. Issue no 2 (Compensation) Medical Expenses :
19. Petitioner in his affidavit of evidence stated that after accident, he was removed to Moolchand hospital. As per MLC of Moolchand hospital, petitioner is found to be brought Moolchand hospital took by PCR, having history of loss of consciousness for about 1520 minutes, head injuries are also noticed. Petitioner thereafter removed to holy family hospital, MLC (Ex. PW1/1) of Holy Family hospital also shows that petitioner become unconscious after the accident, MLC of Holy Family hospital also suggests that petitioner suffered head injuries. Petitioner, thereafter admitted himself at Batra hospital. Discharge summary (Ex. PW1/2) of Batra Hospital also noticed that petitioner admitted with alleged history of RTA on 29.01.2010, diagnosed to have suffered head injuries with fracture of middle face. Petitioner remained admitted in Batra hospital from 30.01.2010 to 05.02.2010 . During hospitalization the petitioner NCCT was found normal, however NCCT of face suggests horizontal fracture of the middle of the face, and closed reduction operation of Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Vs. Manpreet Singh & ors. suit no. 50/12 (Pg 8 of 12) face was done on 04.02.2009. As per OPD cards (Ex.PW1/3), petitioner remained under treatment with Batra hospital till 08.12.2011. Petitioner also treated for various complications with private doctors. Petitioner for claiming expenses relied upon medical bills (Ex. PW1/8 colly page 1 to 196) for a total sum of Rs. 1,11,773/. Ld. Counsel for respondent submits that though bills are filed in original, but these also contain the treatment of petitioner at Arya Vaidya Shala and there is no corresponding prescription for his treatment for ayurvedic medicines taken by him. Nothing came in cross examination that petitioner have not taken any ayurvedic medicines. Records suggests that petitioner remained under treatment for about two years. Petitioner have undergone treatment for various complications arises out of the present injuries. Nothing material comes in cross examination to dispute the genuineness of the original bills filed by the petitioner , hence, a sum of Rs. 1,11,773/ is granted to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
20. Compensation for pain and suffering: Petitioner is found to have suffered grievous fracture injuries on the face, keeping in view of the nature of injuries, duration of treatment and trauma of accident, a sum of Rs. 50,000/is granted towards pain and suffering.
21. Loss of Income during treatment: Petitioner in his affidavit of evidence stated that at the time of accident he was working with M/s Inter Escape Company at Boriwili, Mumbai earning Rs. 45,000/ per month. Petitioner for proving his salary relied upon salary certificate Ex. PW1/4 showing that Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Vs. Manpreet Singh & ors. suit no. 50/12 (Pg 9 of 12) petitioner working as site supervisor and drawing salary of Rs. 10,000+ Rs. 45,000/ towards salary and conveyance per month. Petitioner also filed another certificate dated 17.07.2011 of the abovementioned company (Ex. PW1/5) showing that his salary was reduced from Rs. 45,000/ to Rs. 25,000/. However petitioner not examined any employer . Petitioner stated to be drawing salary of Rs. 45,000/ but have not filed any income tax record in this regard. In these circumstances, petitioner unable to prove that he was drawing Rs. 45,000/ per month. Petitioner even not filed any medical certificate showing till what date he could not joined his duties. But keeping in view the nature of injuries and duration of treatment, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ is granted to the petitioner towards loss of income during treatment.
22. Compensation for Special Diet, Attendant Charges and Conveyance: Petitioner in his affidavit of evidence stated that he spent around Rs. 30,000/ on special diet and Rs. 25,000/ on attendant charges and Rs. 20,000/ on conveyance, but not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate the same, however it can not be inferred that petitioner has not spent any expenses under present head. It is natural that these injuries entails heavy expenses under present head. Thus keeping in view the nature of injuries and duration of treatment a lumpsum amount of Rs. 30,000/ is granted as expenses under present head.
23. Thus, the total compensation to which petitioner is entitled comes as under: S.No Details Amount Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Vs. Manpreet Singh & ors. suit no. 50/12 (Pg 10 of 12) 1 Medical Expenses Rs.1,11,773/ Compensation for special diet, attendant charges Rs.30,000/ 2 and conveyance 3 Compensation for pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/ 4 Loss of Income during treatment Rs. 1,00,000/ Total Rs. 2,91,773/ Hence, the petitioner is awarded a total amount of Rs. 2,91,773/ (Rupees Two lacs ninety one thousand seven hundred seventy three only). Relief :
24. The petitioner is hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 2,91,773/ (Rupees Two lacs ninety one thousand seven hundred seventy three only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present petition till the date of realization in favour of petitioner against the respondent no. 1 and 2 on account of their liability being joint and several.
25. The driver R1 driver is the principal tort feasor, R2 being the owner vicariously liable for the acts of R1.
26. In view of the above discussion, R1 and R2 are directed to deposit the award amount in the court within a period of 30 days from today alongwith the interest @ 9% per annum, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be charged for the period of delay.
Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Vs. Manpreet Singh & ors. suit no. 50/12 (Pg 11 of 12)
27. Copy of this order be given dasti to the parties.
28. Put up for receiving the compliance on 20.10.2014.
Announced in open Court Dated: 19.09.2014 (Ajay Kumar Jain) POMACT02/(South East District) Saket, New Delhi/19.09.2014 Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Vs. Manpreet Singh & ors. suit no. 50/12 (Pg 12 of 12)