Delhi District Court
Present Address vs Shri Ravi Prakash on 30 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJLI GOEL, PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL2, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No.92/15
Date of Institution: 12.08.2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Ram Sewak
S/o Shri Gangu Prasad
R/o H.No.1592, Sector27
ReSettlement Colony
Rohini
Delhi 110085.
Present Address:
C2/941, Sector27
Rohini
Delhi - 110085. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Ravi Prakash
S/o Shri Girwar Singh
R/o H.No.185, Village Bamnoli
Delhi.
2. Shri Surender Singh
S/o Shri Amar Singh
R/o RZ16/274, Gali No.5A
Geetanjali Park
West Sagar Pur
Delhi 110046.
Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 1 of 26
Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
3. M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
First Floor, Community Centre, Lotus Tower
New Friends Colony
New Delhi110025. ...Respondents
Final Arguments heard : 30.09.2015 Award reserved for : 20.10.2015 Date of Award : 20.10.2015 AWARD
1. Vide this judgmentcumaward, I proceed to decide the petition filed u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as amended uptodate (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of compensation in a road accident.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 12.09.2014 at about 6.45 a.m., the injured/ petitioner after loading Sofabed on his rickshaw from Kirti Nagar was proceeding towards Gurgaon while pulling his rickshaw. When he reached at Thimaiya Road, in front of Head Quarters Chief Engineer, Delhi Cantt. then all of sudden a Truck bearing No.DL1LM3770, which was being driven by the respondent No.1 came from the back side at a very high speed, in rash and negligent manner, carelessly, in violation of all traffic rules and norms and hit the rickshaw of the injured/ petitioner from behind with forceful impact and caused a dreadful accident. It is averred that as a result of the accident, the injured/ petitioner sustained severe abdomen injury, lacerated wound over scalp (severe head injury) and also sustained abrasions, wounds and other Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 2 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
grievous injuries all over his body. It is submitted that after the accident, the respondent No.1 i.e. driver of the Truck was caught by public persons on the spot and was handed over to the police of PS Delhi Cantt. He was taken to the police station and his vehicle was also impounded by the police of PS Delhi Cantt. and the statement of the injured/ petitioner was recorded by the police of PS Delhi Cantt. Thereafter, it came in the knowledge of the family members of the injured/ petitioner that the driver of the Truck was allowed to go from the police station and no action was taken against him. The family members of the injured/ petitioner visited several times to the police station with the request to register a case u/s 279/338 of IPC against the respondent No.1 i.e. driver as well as respondent No.2/ owner of the Truck, but no response was given by the police. After finding no other way, the injured/ petitioner lodged a complaint on 15.10.2014 with the SHO PS Delhi Cantt. New Delhi with the request to take immediate action and register a case u/s 279/338 of IPC against the respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle/Truck. Even on receipt of the complaint, no action was taken by the police of PS Delhi Cantt. against the respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending truck and even no inquiry was conducted in the case. Thereafter, having no other option, the injured/petitioner filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. along with application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registering a case u/s 279/338 of IPC against the driver/ owner of the offending vehicle in the Court of learned M.M. PHC, New Delhi and on the directions of the court the concerned police registered a case bearing FIR No.22/15 u/s 279/338 of IPC against the Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 3 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle/truck. It is contended that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1/driver, who drove the offending vehicle at a very high speed, rashly and negligently and if the respondent No.1 had driven the offending vehicle at a normal speed, carefully or cautiously or he had applied the brakes at the relevant time, the accident could have been easily averted. It is alleged that the respondent No.1 had driven his vehicle in contravention of all the traffic rules and norms and as such the respondent No.1 was entirely responsible for the accident.
3. It is stated that after the accident, the injured/petitioner was removed to Base Hospital, Delhi there his MLC was made bearing No.540/14 and after primary treatment, he was immediately referred to Government Hospital, as he was unable to bear the expenses of the said hospital. The same day, the injured was taken and admitted in DDU Hospital, Delhi for proper treatment. During the course of his treatment, several tests and Xrays were conducted, several medicines and injections were injected and he was operated on 12.09.2014 for his abdomen and scalp injury. After prolonged treatment of 12 days, he was discharged on 23.09.2014, with the advice to attend OPD for further regular treatment. It is submitted that the injured/petitioner remained under regular treatment in OPD for longer as advised. It is stated that the injured was a rickshaw puller being a selfemployed person and he was earning around Rs.12,000/ p.m. for which he required perfect attention and Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 4 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
movement. The injured had already incurred around Rs.50,000/ on his treatment, medicines, special diet and conveyance etc. which was likely to increase as he was still under treatment. It is averred that at the time of the accident, the injured was a hale and hearty person of 40 years old, but due to severe abdomen and scalp injuries, he was still unable to move, walk, run, climb and do other activities properly, he was also requiring assistance for movement. He would also not be able to lead a normal life and he would not be able to pull the rickshaw throughout his life and the injuries may result into permanent disability. It is averred that the injured had also undergone extreme pain, shock, agony, mental torture, stress, sufferings and inconvenience etc. resulting in shortening of his life. It is submitted that the accident was caused due to the sole negligence of the respondent No.1 who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, respondent No.2 was the owner and the respondent No.3 was the insurer of the offending vehicle, therefore, all the respondents were jointly as well as severally liable to pay compensation to the injured/petitioner for the injuries sustained in the accident. It is prayed that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/ be awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
4. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent No.3/insurance company taking the preliminary objections that the claim filed by the claimant is not maintainable and is false, frivolous, baseless and vexatious since the alleged accident took place on 12.09.2014 whereas the FIR had been lodged Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 5 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
on 19.01.2015 after a delay of more than 4 months. It is contended that the reasons given for delay are concocted, baseless and false and do not inspire confidence and it has been held in a catena of authorities that the delay in lodging the FIR can be fatal. It is submitted that the liability of the respondent No.3 is subject to the driver of the offending vehicle holding a valid and effective driving license and the owner holding a valid and effective permit and fitness certificate at the time of the accident. It is averred that the accident had occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the injured himself and hence the respondent No.3 is not liable and the liability of the respondent No.3 is subject to liability being fastened on the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The averments made in the claim petition were denied. It is stated that the alleged offending vehicle Tata Ace DL1LM3370 was insured in the name of Surrender Singh vide policy No.010091585600 from 05.02.2014 to 04.02.2015 with the respondent No.3. It is alleged that the claimed amount is highly exaggerated, baseless and hence disputed and denied.
5. Initially the Detailed Accident Report was filed by the IO on 16.5.2015 and thereafter the claim petition was filed on 12.8.2015. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 09.09.2015:
1. Whether the petitioner/injured sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 12.09.2014 at about 6.45 A.M. at Thimaiya Road in front of Head Quarters Chief Engineer, Delhi Cantt. caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DL1LM3770 driven by respondent no.1, Ravi Prakash Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 6 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
and owned by respondent no.2 Surender Singh and
insured with respondent no.3 M/s Tata AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. The petitioner, Shri Ram Sewak, appeared in the witness box as PW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. He stated that during the treatment in OPD, stitches were removed on 29.09.2014 and the required medicines were prescribed from time to time. He stated that he could not get some of the medicines bills, due to his unawareness about the use of the same. Copy of voter ID card is Ex.PW1/1, complaint dated 15.10.2014 is Ex.PW1/2, copy of complaint case is Ex.PW1/3, original discharge summary is Ex.PW1/4, original OPD card is Ex.PW1/5, medical bills are Ex.PW1/6 (colly) worth Rs.10,198/, photographs are Ex.PW1/7 (colly) and DAR is Ex.PW1/8 (colly). PE was closed on 30.9.2015. RE was also closed on 30.9.2015.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and perused the record. The petitioner was also examined on 30.09.2015 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court on 11.1.2013 in MACA No.792/2006 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ranjit Pandey and Ors.
Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 7 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
8. My findings on the specific issues are as under:
Issue No. 1
9. As the petition has been filed U/s 166 M.V Act it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that he sustained injuries in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle it has been held in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pushpa Rana & Another 2009 Accident Claims Journal 287 as follows:
"The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents/claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V. Meena Variyal (supra). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of offending vehicle (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code against the driver;
(iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of deceased.
These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 8 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on part of the driver."
It is established law that in a claim petition under Motor Vehicle Act, the standard of proof to establish rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle is not at par with the criminal case where such rashness and negligence is required to be proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. In Kaushnamma Begum and others v. New India Assurance Company Limited, it was inter alia held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injury or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
10. The case of the petitioner is that on 12.09.2014 at about 6.45 a.m., the injured/ petitioner after loading Sofabed on his rickshaw from Kirti Nagar was proceeding towards Gurgaon while pulling his rickshaw. When he reached at Thimaiya Road, in front of Head Quarters Chief Engineer, Delhi Cantt. then all of sudden a Truck bearing No.DL1LM3770, which was being driven by the respondent No.1 came from the back side at a very high speed, in rash and negligent manner, carelessly, in violation of all traffic rules and norms and hit the rickshaw of the injured/ petitioner from behind with forceful impact and caused a dreadful accident. It was averred that as a result of the accident, the Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 9 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
injured/ petitioner sustained severe abdomen injury, lacerated wound over scalp (severe head injury) and also sustained abrasions, wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body. It was submitted that after the accident, the respondent No.1 i.e. driver of the Truck was caught by public persons on the spot and was handed over to the police of PS Delhi Cantt. He was taken to the police station and his vehicle was also impounded by the police of PS Delhi Cantt. and the statement of the injured/ petitioner was recorded by the police of PS Delhi Cantt. However no action was taken and it was only when the injured/petitioner filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. along with application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., on the directions of the court the concerned police registered a case bearing FIR No.22/15 u/s 279/338 of IPC against the respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle/truck. It was contended that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1/driver, who drove the offending vehicle at a very high speed, rashly and negligently and if the respondent No.1 had driven the offending vehicle at a normal speed, carefully or cautiously or he had applied the brakes at the relevant time, the accident could have been easily averted. It was alleged that the respondent No.1 had driven his vehicle in contravention of all the traffic rules and norms and as such the respondent No.1 was entirely responsible for the accident. In paras 3 to 8 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A the petitioner had reiterated the mode and manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition.
Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 10 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
11. The IO had filed Detailed Accident Report containing the criminal record consisting of copy of charge sheet; copy of tehrir, copy of FIR; copy of site plan; copy of MLC, copy of arrest memo, copy of seizure memos; copy of mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, copy of verification report of the RC of the offending vehicle with the copy of the RC, copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle and its verification report and verification report of DL of the respondent No.1 with a copy of the DL and copy of fitness certificate of the offending vehicle, copy of statement of the petitioner, copies of bills in respect of the petitioner and copy of notice under Section 133 MV Act. As per the FIR No.22/15 under sections 279/338 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt. the case was registered on the basis of complaint of the petitioner Ram Sewak wherein he had stated about the manner of the accident. As per the charge sheet the respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under sections 279/338 IPC.
12. The respondents No.1 and 2 had not filed the written statement nor appeared to crossexamine PW1. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 admitted that the police did not take his complaint on the date of the accident i.e. 12.09.2014. He did not go to the PS either to lodge his complaint regarding the accident on the same date. Thus PW1 admitted that the police did not take his complaint on the date of the accident i.e. 12.09.2014 and he did not go to the PS either to lodge his complaint regarding the accident on the same date. It was argued on behalf of Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 11 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
the insurance company that there was delay in lodging the FIR. However it is the case of the petitioner himself that the police had not registered the FIR till he filed a complaint case before the learned MM. The petitioner had also placed on record the copy of the complaint made to police officials which is dated 15.10.2014 and of the complaint case which was filed. Further a perusal of the charge sheet shows that it was stated therein that on 12.9.2014 DD No. 9A was received whereafter the IO had gone to the spot of accident and found the Tempo Tata SE No.DL1LM3770 and rickshaw. He had also obtained the MLC but the petitioner was unfit for statement. As such the police officials had information regarding the accident on the day of the accident itself and no delay can be attributed to the petitioner in lodging the FIR, nor the delay was such as would vitiate the case of the petitioner. It was contended on behalf of the insurance company that the complaint case was only against the owner and not the driver of the offending vehicle but though only the owner was made the respondent, it was specifically stated in the complaint that no action was taken against the respondent or the driver.
13. During further crossexamination PW1 stated that he was on the extreme left side when the accident took place. He stated that he was hit from behind, therefore he could not say which part of the offending vehicle collided with his rickshaw from behind. He denied the suggestion that no such accident had taken place on 12.09.2014 with the offending vehicle No.DL1LM3770. He denied the suggestion that he had not sustained any injuries in the accident Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 12 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
dated 12.09.2014. He stated that he was taken to the hospital by the PCR van. Someone from the public called the police but he could not tell the name of the person who called the police after the accident. Thus PW1 stated that he was on the extreme left side when the accident took place and the site plan also shows that the accident had taken place on the left side of the road. He reiterated that he was hit from behind and as such he could not say which part of the offending vehicle collided with his rickshaw from behind. The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle does not show any fresh damage but it is pertinent that the mechanical inspection was got carried out after nearly 7 months of the accident. He stated that he was taken to the hospital by the PCR van and the MLC also mentions about the PCR. Thus nothing material has come out in the crossexamination of the petitioner to doubt his testimony. It was argued by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the petitioner had stated about being hit by a truck but the offending vehicle was a tempo. However the offending vehicle was found at the spot of the accident even as per the charge sheet and as such the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident cannot be disputed. There is also nothing on record to show that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the petitioner.
14. The respondents No.1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle have not adduced any evidence to dispute the version put forth by the petitioner or in the criminal record. The criminal record has been Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 13 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
placed on record which shows that the respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 279/338 IPC. In Basant Kaur and others v. Chattar Pal Singh and others 2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB) it was observed that registration of criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle was enough to record a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident. The respondents have also not led any evidence to prove any other version of the accident. There is no evidence from the respondents to disprove the particulars of the accident or the involvement of vehicle No.DL1LM3770. In view of the testimony of PW1 and the documents on record which have remained unrebutted, the negligence of the respondent No.1 has been prima facie proved.
15. It was stated that due to the accident the injured/ petitioner sustained severe abdomen injury, lacerated wound over scalp (severe head injury) and also sustained abrasions, wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner. Thus it stands established that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the alleged accident. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 14 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
Issue No.2
16. Since issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioner he would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Act. The law is well settled that the compensation has to be awarded in personal injury cases under the following heads: (1) for loss of earnings during the period of treatment (2) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (3) expenses suffered by him on his treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food etc. In addition, he is further entitled to non pecuniary damages/general damages which include (1) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries and (2) loss of expectation of life.
MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT
17. The case of the petitioner is that due to the accident on 12.9.2014 he sustained severe abdomen injury, lacerated wound over scalp (severe head injury) and also sustained abrasions, wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body. It was stated that after the accident, the injured/petitioner was removed to Base Hospital, Delhi there his MLC was made bearing No.540/14 and after primary treatment, he was immediately referred to Government Hospital, as he was unable to bear the expenses of the said hospital. The same day, the injured was taken and admitted in DDU Hospital, Delhi for Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 15 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
proper treatment. During the course of his treatment, several tests and Xrays were conducted, several medicines and injections were injected and he was operated on 12.09.2014 for his abdomen and scalp injury. After prolonged treatment of 12 days, he was discharged on 23.09.2014, with the advice to attend OPD for further regular treatment. It was submitted that the injured/petitioner remained under regular treatment in OPD for longer as advised. The injured had already incurred around Rs.50,000/ on his treatment, medicines, special diet and conveyance etc. which was likely to increase as he was still under treatment. It was averred that at the time of the accident, the injured was a hale and hearty person of 40 years old, but due to severe abdomen and scalp injuries, he was still unable to move, walk, run, climb and do other activities properly, he was also requiring assistance for movement. He would also not be able to lead a normal life and he would not be able to pull the rickshaw throughout his life and the injuries may result into permanent disability. It was averred that the injured had also undergone extreme pain, shock, agony, mental torture, stress, sufferings and inconvenience etc. resulting in shortening of his life.
18. The petitioner in paras 3, 9 to 12 and 15 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. He stated that during the treatment in OPD, stitches were removed on 29.09.2014 and the required medicines were prescribed from time to time. He stated that he could not get some of the medicines bills, due to his unawareness about the use of the same. Original discharge Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 16 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
summary is Ex.PW1/4, original OPD card is Ex.PW1/5, medical bills are Ex.PW1/6 (colly) worth Rs.10,198/ and photographs are Ex.PW1/7 (colly). The MLC of the petitioner is on record as per which the nature of injuries was opined to be grievous. The learned counsel for the insurance company had argued that the MLC did not show any injuries on the abdomen or any spinal injuries but the discharge summary shows tenderness of abdomen. Further only the MRI of the spine was got done which may have been prescribed and the same is dated 2.10.2014 i.e. not much after the period of the accident. The documents placed on record show that the petitioner was admitted in hospital from 12.9.2014 to 23.9.2014. Thus the injuries were grievous in nature. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability due to the accident. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 admitted that he was paid a compensation of Rs. 7,000/ by the owner of the offending vehicle in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that the treatment record and medical bills i.e. Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6 were forged, fabricated and procured documents and were not related to the injuries sustained in the accident. Thus PW1 admitted that he was paid a compensation of Rs.7,000/ by the owner of the offending vehicle in the hospital. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner had sustained injuries and underwent treatment for the same. The petitioner had stated that he had already incurred around Rs.50,000/ on his treatment, medicines, special diet and conveyance etc. The petitioner had filed bills for an amount of Rs.10,298/ approximately. Looking to the nature of the injuries the petitioner is held Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 17 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
entitled to the amount of the bills. The petitioner would incur some expenses even subsequently. Accordingly an amount of Rs.12,000/ is awarded towards medical treatment and expenses including the amount of the bills. PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
19. It has been held in Divisional Controller, K. S. R. T. C v Mahadeva Shetty and another AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4172 as under:
13."The damages for vehicular accidents are in the nature of compensation in money for loss of any kind caused to any person. In case of personal injury the position is different from loss of property. In the later case there is possibility of repair or restoration. But in the case of personal injury, the possibility of repair or restoration is practically nonexistent. In Parry V. Cleaver (1969 1 All. E. R. 555) Lord Morris stated as follows:
"To compensate in money for pain and for the physical consequences is invariably difficult, but...... no other process can be devised than that of making monetary assessment."
The case of the petitioner is that due to the accident on 12.9.2014 he sustained severe abdomen injury, lacerated wound over scalp (severe head injury) and also sustained abrasions, wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body. It was stated that after the accident, the injured/petitioner was removed to Base Hospital, Delhi there his MLC was made bearing No.540/14 and after primary treatment, he was immediately referred to Government Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 18 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
Hospital, as he was unable to bear the expenses of the said hospital. The same day, the injured was taken and admitted in DDU Hospital, Delhi for proper treatment. During the course of his treatment, several tests and Xrays were conducted, several medicines and injections were injected and he was operated on 12.09.2014 for his abdomen and scalp injury. After prolonged treatment of 12 days, he was discharged on 23.09.2014, with the advice to attend OPD for further regular treatment. It was submitted that the injured/petitioner remained under regular treatment in OPD for longer as advised. It was averred that at the time of the accident, the injured was a hale and hearty person of 40 years old, but due to severe abdomen and scalp injuries, he was still unable to move, walk, run, climb and do other activities properly, he was also requiring assistance for movement. He would also not be able to lead a normal life and he would not be able to pull the rickshaw throughout his life and the injuries may result into permanent disability. It was averred that the injured had also undergone extreme pain, shock, agony, mental torture, stress, sufferings and inconvenience etc. resulting in shortening of his life. The MLC of the petitioner is on record as per which the nature of injuries was opined to be grievous. The documents placed on record show that the petitioner was admitted in hospital from 12.9.2014 to 23.9.2014. Thus the injuries were grievous in nature. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability due to the accident. Looking at the nature of injuries and extent of treatment and that the accident pertains to the year 2014, the petitioner is awarded Rs.25,000/ (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 19 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
only) for pain and suffering.
20. The petitioner was 40 years of age at the time of the accident and it was so stated in the claim petition and PW1 had also deposed to that effect. Copy of the voter identity card of the petitioner is Ex.PW1/1 as per which the age of the petitioner was 43 years as on 1.1.2011. As such he would have been more than 46 years old on the date of the accident i.e. 12.9.2014. Notice can be taken of the fact that on account of the injuries sustained by him the petitioner may not have been able to perform his day to day duties towards his family and on account of the injuries suffered by him the petitioner may not have been able to enjoy the amenities of life. In the circumstances the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/ (Rs.Ten Thousand only) for loss of amenities of life. The petitioner cannot however be held to be entitled to any amount towards loss of expectation of life or towards disfiguration. CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
21. The petitioner in para 12 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had stated that he had already incurred around Rs.50,000/ on his treatment, medicines, special diet and conveyance etc. Although the petitioner has not filed any document on record in order to prove the expenditure on conveyance however, notice can be taken of the fact that after the accident the petitioner was taken to Base Hospital and thereafter to DDU Hospital and that after discharge from hospital Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 20 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
he might have hired the services of private conveyance as he would not have been able to drive of his own or to use public conveyance. In the circumstances a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs.Five Thousand only) would be just and proper towards conveyance charges.
22. The petitioner in para 12 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had stated that he had already incurred around Rs.50,000/ on his treatment, medicines, special diet and conveyance etc. Although the petitioner has not proved that he was advised special diet but looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner notice can be taken of the fact that the petitioner might have taken diet rich in protein, vitamins and minerals for speedier recovery. In the circumstances the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs.Five Thousand only) for special diet.
23. Although the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that he incurred any expenses towards attendant charges, however looking to the nature of injuries the petitioner would have incurred some expenditure on attendant charges and a sum of Rs.12,000/ is awarded towards attendant charges.
Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 21 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
LOSS OF INCOME
24. It is the case of the petitioner that he was a rickshaw puller being a selfemployed person and he was earning around Rs.12,000/ p.m. for which he required perfect attention and movement. It was averred that at the time of the accident, the injured was a hale and hearty person of 40 years old, but due to severe abdomen and scalp injuries, he was still unable to move, walk, run, climb and do other activities properly, he was also requiring assistance for movement. He would also not be able to lead a normal life and he would not be able to pull the rickshaw throughout his life and the injuries may result into permanent disability. The petitioner in paras 13 and 14 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. However the petitioner has not placed on record any document to show what he was doing or how much amount he was earning though as per his case, at the time of the accident as well he was pulling his rickshaw and a rickshaw was also found at the spot of the accident. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 stated that he had studied upto class 5. He denied the suggestion that he was able to pull the rickshaw. He admitted that he had no documentary evidence to show that he was a rickshaw puller and he was earning Rs. 12,000/ p.m. He denied the suggestion that he had filed a false and exaggerated claim. Thus PW1 stated that he had studied upto class 5 though no document to that effect has been placed on record. It is significant that PW1 admitted that he had no documentary evidence to show that he was a Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 22 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
rickshaw puller and he was earning Rs.12,000/ p.m. As such there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was earning Rs.12,000/ p.m. During examination by the Tribunal the petitioner stated that he was 40 years old. He stated that at the time of the accident he was pulling a rickshaw and earning Rs.600/ to Rs.700/ per day and at present he was not doing anything. However there is nothing to show his income.
25. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that he remained on bed rest for any particular period and there is nothing to show that he was advised bed rest for any particular period or that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident he was unable to work or to show the period for which he was not able to work. During examination by the Tribunal the petitioner had stated that at present he was not doing anything but there is nothing to show that the same was on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. In the absence of any medical advice, notice can be taken of the fact that the petitioner may not have been able to perform his avocation for some period on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs.30,000/ consolidated on account of loss of income.
26. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner had suffered any disability on account of the injuries. The petitioner has not proved that he acquired any disability on account of the accident or that he is likely to suffer Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 23 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
future loss of income on account of the injuries sustained in the accident and that the injuries would reduce his efficiency to work and thereby he would suffer loss of future income. Accordingly the petitioner cannot be held entitled to any amount on account of loss of future prospects.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
Medicines and Medical treatment Rs.12,000/ Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/ Loss of Amenities of life Rs.10,000/ Conveyance Rs.5,000/ Special Diet Rs.5,000/ Attendant charges Rs.12,000/ Loss of Income Rs.30,000/ TOTAL Rs.99,000/
Thus the total compensation would be Rs.99,000/. The petitioner had stated that he had received an amount of Rs.7,000/ from the owner of the offending vehicle in the hospital but no deduction is being made towards the said amount.
RELIEF
27. The petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.99,000/ (Rs.Ninety Nine Thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization including, interim award, if any already passed Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 24 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the award amount directly in the court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft within 30 days of the passing of the award failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay. APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
28. The respondent No.1 is the driver, the respondent No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Thus the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are held jointly and severally liable. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 i.e. M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. being the insurance company in its reply had stated that the alleged offending vehicle Tata Ace DL1LM3370 was insured in the name of Surrender Singh vide policy No.010091585600 from 05.02.2014 to 04.02.2015 with the respondent No.3. There is no evidence on behalf of the respondent No.3 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondents No.1 and 2 and in fact the duly verified documents regarding the offending vehicle were placed on record by the IO with the DAR. Hence, the respondent No.3 being the insurance company in respect of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.3 being the insurer is directed to deposit the award amount in the court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft within 30 days of the passing of the award Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 25 of 26 Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.
with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
29. Nazir to report in case the cheque is not deposited within 30 days of the passing of the award/judgment. Nazir is directed to note the particulars of the award amount in the register today itself. The petitioner shall file his complete address as well as address of his counsel for sending the notice of deposit of the award amount. The insurer shall deposit the award amount along with interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant with a copy to his counsel and the compliance report shall be filed in the court along with proof of deposit of award amount, the notice of deposit and the calculation of interest on 19.1.2016.
An attested copy of the award be given to the parties (free of cost). File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
on this 20th day of October, 2015 (GEETANJLI GOEL)
PO: MACT2
New Delhi
Suit No. 92/15 Page No. 26 of 26
Ram Sewak v Ravi Prakash & Ors.