Delhi District Court
Shri Shwetank Rana vs Anoop Singh on 3 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJLI GOEL, PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL2, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No.153/14
Date of Institution: 05.08.2013
ID No.02403C0097572013
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Shwetank Rana
S/o Shri Akhil Kumar Rana
R/o H.No.117, Village Lalihai
PS Mirachi Vadi
Verma Colony, Anchal Kaithar
Bihar. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Anoop Singh
S/o Shri O.P. Singhal
R/o WZ162, Sadh Nagar
Palam Colony
New Delhi.
ASP, SHO, PS Ladwa, Dist. KKR
Thanesar (KKR), HR.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Second Floor, DLF
Industrial Plot, Moti Nagar
New Delhi. ...Respondents
Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 1 of 27 Final Arguments heard : 04.09.2014 Award reserved for : 03.11.2014 Date of Award : 03.11.2014 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 08.10.2012 at about 2.45 p.m, he was going in his car from Pinto Park to Vasant Nagar, New Delhi Cant via Old Palam Road. When he reached at Old Palam Airport Road in front of Project Store GE (North) Air Force Palam, New Delhi a car No.DL 13CC 1150 came from behind at a very high speed driven by its driver most rashly and negligently without following any traffic rules and regulations on the wrong side of the road and hit the petitioner as a result of which the petitioner received grievous injuries and his car was completely damaged. It is stated that in respect of the accident FIR No.231/2012 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt. It is averred that the petitioner was removed to 3 Wing Air Force Palam Hospital, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi from the place of accident where he was admitted and was getting treatment for the injuries received in the accident and thereafter he got treatment at Base Hospital, New Delhi. It is stated that the petitioner suffered grievous fracture injuries in left side of the chest and injury to right knee and other multiple injuries all over Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 2 of 27 the body. It is averred that the petitioner had spent Rs.50,000/ on treatment, medicine, conveyance and special diets and he was likely to spend much more on the said heads in future and he was still under active treatment. It is stated that the petitioner is 31 years old and working with Indian Air Force and earning Rs.62,124/ p.m. It is averred that the petitioner had suffered and was still suffering from great pain, mental torture and shock besides financial loss. It is averred that the health of the petitioner had deteriorated due to the injury received in the accident and he was also suffering monthly financial loss. Due to the injuries, the life span of the petitioner had also been considerably reduced. It is averred that the accident had ruined the petitioner physically, practically, mentally and financially. It is prayed that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/ be awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
3. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 making the preliminary submissions that the petition suffers from infirmity and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and is a vexatious petition by a person who himself is guilty minded and also a wrongdoer. Preliminary objections were taken that the petitioner has failed to disclose true facts in his petition as there was no occasion when the accident as alleged, had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving/ act of the respondent No.1. It is averred that there was no occasion, when the injuries as alleged in para 12 of the petition were ever caused to the petitioner, and as such, the petition filed by Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 3 of 27 the petitioner is based upon false, frivolous and baseless averments, and the same is without any merit. It is averred that the respondent No.1 had never acted negligently or rashly while driving his car bearing registration No.DL 13CC 1150, whereas it is the petitioner, who was negligent while driving the car bearing registration No.HR 26AJ 3702. It is averred that the petitioner has not stated the true facts relating to the accident, and as such, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. It is averred that on 08.10.12, when the respondent No.1 was coming back to his house via Old Palam Road, at about 2.30 p.m, his Honda City car bearing registration No.DL 13CC 1150 was badly hit from front side by another Honda City Car having registration No.HR 26AJ 3702. It is averred that the respondent No.1 was driving his car in a controlled speed/ manner, as he had just crossed the speed breaker near Hajipur line, however, the driver of the offending vehicle namely Shri Shwetank Rana (the petitioner herein) was driving his car in a rash and negligent manner and as such, the accident was caused just because of the negligent driving of the car by Shri Shwetank Rana. It is averred that the respondent No.1 had been provided medical treatment by the doctors of Deen Dayal Hospital, for the injuries sustained by him due to the accident caused by the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the petitioner on 08.10.2012 itself. It is averred that the respondent No.2 had lodged a written complaint dated 09.10.2012 with the police officials of PS Delhi Cantt, and thereafter lodged a reminder / request letter to the Commissioner of Delhi Police and the DCP, South West, however, till date, the respondent No.1 had not been informed about the registration of Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 4 of 27 FIR on his complaint. It is averred that on 15.10.2012, the respondent No.1 approached the Court of the then Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka District Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi by way of an application for release of his car on superdari vide application dated 15.10.2012, titled as 'State Vs. Shwetank Rana'. Considering the circumstances stated in the application, and the facts of the case, vide order dated 15.10.2012, the application of the respondent No. 1 for release of his car on superdari was allowed. However, in reply to the said application, the IO had submitted that the owner of the vehicle had not joined the investigation and given reply to the notice under Section 133 of M.V. Act, and as such, at the time of passing of an order of release of the vehicle, the court had recorded in its order that 'in view of the facts and circumstances, application of superdarinama is allowed and vehicle i.e. Honda City car bearing No.DL 13CC 1150 be released to its owner on furnishing superdarinama in the sum of Rs.Seven Lacs subject to the condition that he will join the investigation with IO and will give reply u/s 133 M.V. Act'. It is averred that in compliance of the order dated 19.10.2012, the respondent No.1 had submitted his reply to the notice under M. V. Act along with copies of documents relating to his car, and also handed over Superdarinama in original to the IO and accordingly, the car of the respondent No.1 was released on superdari to him. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 sought permission from the Court of the Ld. MM to dispose off his car, which had been released to him on superdari and the court had allowed the respondent No.1 to dispose off his Honda City Car, after cancellation of the superdarinama. It is averred that the Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 5 of 27 said facts clarify that it is the petitioner, who is guilty of causing injuries and loss to the respondent No.1 while driving rashly and negligently.
4. It is further averred that the petitioner's claim qua the alleged injuries is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it is prima facie available on the judicial file that at no point of time, the alleged injuries as mentioned in the petition were caused to the petitioner. Even if, for a moment, it is presumed that the petitioner suffered injuries then the same may have been caused, solely due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner, himself. It is averred that the petitioner is stated to be a government employee working with Indian Air Force, and as such, being a government employee the petitioner is entitled to free medical services/ assistance/ facilities. It is averred that the petitioner's claim is without any justification. The averments made in the claim petition were denied. It is averred that the petitioner is presenting a false, frivolous, coloured and distorted picture of the events to take advantage of his own wrongful acts and omission as it was the petitioner who was driving his car at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the alleged incident. It is averred that on 08.10.12, at about 2.30 p.m, when the respondent No.1 was on his way back to his house via Old Palam Road, and had just crossed the speed breaker near Hajipur line at a very low speed, his Honda City car bearing registration No.DL 13CC 1150 was badly hit from front side by another Honda City Car having registration No.HR 26AJ 3702, which was being driven by Shri Shwetank Rana, the petitioner, at a very high speed, in a Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 6 of 27 very rash and negligent manner, resulting in the accident. It is averred that there was no occasion when the respondent No.1 had acted rashly or negligently on the day of the incident. It is averred that the amount claimed by the petitioner is false, frivolous and baseless and without any justification, cogent facts and base. It is averred that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong doings i.e. his own rashlessness, negligence and violation of the traffic rules. It is averred that the petitioner was, himself, acting in a rash and negligent manner, at the time of the alleged accident/ incident.
5. Reply was filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 taking the preliminary objections that the alleged accident had taken place due to the sole carelessness and negligence of the claimant. The involvement of vehicle No.DL 13CC 1150 (car) was specifically denied. It is averred that the accident if any was caused on account of the sole negligence of the injured himself, therefore, neither the driver and owner nor the insurance company of the vehicle No.DL 13CC 1150 (car) could be asked to pay compensation to the petitioner and no cause of action arises against the respondent No.2. It is averred that if it is held that the injured/ complainant sustained injuries, then he must have sustained the same because of his own carelessness and negligence and not because of any wrongful act or negligence on the part of the driver of the car as alleged. It is averred that at the time of the alleged accident, the driver of the vehicle No.DL 13 CC 1150 (Car) was not holding a Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 7 of 27 valid and effective driving license to drive the insured vehicle and the said fact was within the knowledge of the insured under the policy and he had intentionally committed the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is averred that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the petitioner while driving car bearing No.HR 26AJ 3702 at the most the case is of contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. It is averred that the present case does not disclose any cause of action against the respondent No.2 as the manner in which the alleged accident is stated to have occurred is absolutely wrong and concocted. It is averred that the injured/ petitioner with malafide and malicious intention concealed, suppressed and manipulated the true facts to grab the compensation. It is averred that the contents of the FIR and the present case are wrong. It is averred that the vehicle was being driven without valid permit and fitness certificate issued by the competent authority. It is averred that the owner got the vehicle No.DL 13CC 1150 insured with the respondent No.2 by alleging himself to be the owner of the vehicle. The insurance of the interest of the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.DL13CC1150 with the respondent No.2 is admitted subject to the terms, conditions, exclusions and exceptions of the policy No.OG 13 1103 1801 00007747 issued for the period from 31.07.2012 to 30.07.2013, which is in the name of Mr. Anup Singhal. The averments made in the claim petition were denied. It is averred that the respondent No.2 had not received any notice from the insured in respect to the alleged accident. The contents of the FIR were denied, as the petitioner had not disclosed any cause of action for claiming Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 8 of 27 compensation. It is averred that there is no negligence on the part of the driver and the alleged act of causing the accident due to the negligence of the driver is denied. It is denied that the injuries were due to any accident arising out of the insured vehicle.
6. Initially Detailed Accident Report was filed by the IO on 15.4.2013 and thereafter the claim petition was filed on 5.8.2013. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 05.10.2013 of my learned predecessor:
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 08.10.2012 at about 2.45 pm at Old Palam Airport Road in front of project store GE (North), Air Force, Palam, New Delhi, caused by rash and negligent of vehicle No.DL 13CC 1150 driven & owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
Vide order dated 10.7.2014 it was directed that the interest on award, if any be stopped from 2.5.2014 till the date of the award.
Suit No.153/14
Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 9 of 27
7. The petitioner entered into 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 after the accident he was removed to 3 Wing Air Force Palam Hospital, and thereafter, Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi, where he got treatment of the injuries received due to the accident and further operation was recommended by the doctor in March. He stated that he had spent about Rs.30,000/ on his treatment till date, Rs.20,000/ on conveyance and Rs.20,000/ on special diet, and was likely to spend much more on the said heads in future. He stated that he spent Rs.25,000/ on attendant after the accident. He stated that he was suffering from great pain, mental torture, mental agony, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, and financial loss on attendant and shock besides financial losses. He stated that he was working in Indian Air Force as a Flt Ltn and at the time of the accident his monthly salary was about Rs.71,520/. Due to the accidental injuries he was on leave from 08.10.2012 to 23.10.2012 and again on leave from 12.11.2012 to 07.12.2012 that is about 41 days. He stated that he lost pecuniary and nonpecuniary benefits and other special and general damage as admissible under the law. His life span had been ruined and his life had been shortened due to the accident. Treatment record is Ex.PW1/1 (colly), copy of voter ID card is Ex.PW1/2, leave certificate is Ex.PW1/3 and salary slip is Mark X. RE was closed on 2.5.2014.
Suit No.153/14
Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 10 of 27
8. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the record. The petitioner was also examined on 6.8.2014 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.
9. My findings on the specific issues are as under:
Issue No. 1
10. 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 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 Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 11 of 27 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 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.
11. The case of the petitioner is that on 08.10.2012 at about 2.45 p.m, he was going in his car from Pinto Park to Vasant Nagar, New Delhi Cant via Old Palam Road. When he reached at Old Palam Airport Road in front of Project Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 12 of 27 Store GE (North) Air Force Palam, New Delhi a car No.DL 13CC 1150 came from behind at a very high speed driven by its driver most rashly and negligently without following any traffic rules and regulations on the wrong side of the road and hit the petitioner as a result of which the petitioner received grievous injuries and his car was completely damaged. It was stated that in respect of the accident FIR No.231/2012 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt. PW1 in para 1 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterated the mode and manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition. He however stated that the offending car came from the opposite side and hit his car.
12. The IO had filed Detailed Accident Report containing the criminal record consisting of copy of charge sheet; copy of FIR; copy of site plan; copy of MLC, copy of seizure memos; copy of mechanical inspection report of the vehicle bearing No.HR26AJ3702 and of the vehicle bearing No.DL13CC1150, copy of DL of the respondent No.1 and its verification report, copy of verification report of the RC of the offending vehicle with the copy of RC, copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle and its verification report, copy of arrest memo, copy of order on application for release of the offending vehicle and of the vehicle of the petitioner on superdari along with copies of superdarinamas and copy of certificate showing that the petitioner is a Commissioned Officer. As per the FIR No.231/12 under sections 279/337 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt the case was registered on the basis of Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 13 of 27 complaint of the petitioner Shwetank Rana 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 279/337 IPC.
13. The respondent No.1 who is the owner and driver of the alleged offending vehicle had filed the written statement averring that there was no occasion when the accident as alleged, had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving/ act of the respondent No.1 and the injuries as alleged in para 12 of the petition were ever caused to the petitioner. It was averred that the respondent No.1 had never acted negligently or rashly while driving his car bearing registration No.DL 13CC 1150, whereas it was the petitioner, who was negligent while driving the car bearing registration No.HR 26AJ 3702. It was averred that the petitioner had not stated the true facts relating to the accident. It was averred that on 08.10.12, when the respondent No.1 was coming back to his house via Old Palam Road, at about 2.30 p.m, his Honda City car bearing registration No.DL 13CC 1150 was badly hit from front side by another Honda City Car having registration No.HR 26AJ 3702. It was averred that the respondent No.1 was driving his car in a controlled speed/ manner, as he had just crossed the speed breaker near Hajipur line, however, the driver of the offending vehicle namely Shri Shwetank Rana (the petitioner herein) was driving his car in a rash and negligent manner and as such, the accident was caused just because of the negligent driving of the car by Shri Shwetank Rana. It was averred that the respondent No.1 had been provided medical Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 14 of 27 treatment by the doctors of Deen Dayal Hospital, for the injuries sustained by him due to the accident caused by the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the petitioner on 08.10.2012 itself. It was averred that the respondent No.2 had lodged a written complaint dated 09.10.2012 with the police officials of PS Delhi Cantt, and thereafter lodged a reminder / request letter to the Commissioner of Delhi Police and the DCP, South West, however, till date, the respondent No.1 had not been informed about the registration of FIR on his complaint. It is averred that it is the petitioner, who is guilty of causing injuries and loss to the respondent No.1 while driving rashly and negligently. It was averred that even if, for a moment, it was presumed that the petitioner suffered injuries then the same may have been caused, solely due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner, himself. It was averred that the petitioner is presenting a false, frivolous, coloured and distorted picture of the events to take advantage of his own wrongful acts and omission as it was the petitioner who was driving his car at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the alleged incident. It was averred that there was no occasion when the respondent No.1 had acted rashly or negligently on the day of the incident and the petitioner could not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong doings i.e. his own rashlessness, negligence and violation of the traffic rules. It was averred that the petitioner was, himself, acting in a rash and negligent manner, at the time of the alleged accident/ incident. Thus the case of the respondent No.1 is that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself and not of the respondent No.1. Suit No.153/14
Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 15 of 27 The respondent No.1 had also placed on record copy of the complaint dated 9.10.2012, copy of notice under Section 133 MV Act, reply to the notice, order dated 19.10.2012, copies of MLCs and orders dated 29.1.2013 and 30.1.2013.
14. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 PW1 stated that it was wrongly mentioned in para No.9 of the claim petition Ex.PW1/4 that car No.DL 13CC 1150 came from behind and hit him. What was stated in para 1 of the affidavit that the car hit him from the opposite side was correct. He denied the suggestion that he had given a wrong affidavit in support of the claim petition volunteered there was a clerical mistake in the claim petition. He stated that he had come to know about the said clerical mistake just then. He denied the suggestion that he had signed the claim petition without reading it. He stated that he is the owner of the vehicle No.HR 26A 3702 which was being driven by him on 08.10.2012. He denied the suggestion that he was not the owner of the said vehicle on 08.10.2012. He admitted that there was no dividing line on the road on which the accident took place on 08.10.2012. He denied the suggestion that on 08.10.2012, he had negligently hit the vehicle No.DL 13CC 1150 from the opposite side regarding which a complaint was lodged on 09.10.2012 at PS Delhi Cantt or that due to the said accident, the respondent No.1 sustained injuries for which he had to be treated at DDU Hospital on 08.10.2012 or that in the said accident the vehicle of the respondent No.1 got damaged. He denied the suggestion that he was not in possession of a valid DL on 08.10.2012. He denied the Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 16 of 27 suggestion that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 or that the respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle as per law at a reasonable speed or that he had filed a false claim petition or that Rs.10,00,000/ had been claimed therein without any justification or that he was not entitled to claim any special or general damages or that he did not suffer any injury or disability on account of the accident.
15. PW1 thus stated that it was wrongly mentioned in para No.9 of the claim petition Ex.PW1/4 that car No.DL 13CC 1150 came from behind and hit him and what was stated in para 1 of the affidavit that the car hit him from the opposite side was correct. In the claim petition it was stated that the offending vehicle had hit the vehicle of the petitioner from behind but in the affidavit Ex.PW1/A it was stated that the offending vehicle came from the opposite side and hit the vehicle of the petitioner. He admitted that there was no dividing line on the road on which the accident took place on 08.10.2012 and even the site plan copy of which is on record does not show any dividing line. The site plan also shows that the accident had taken place on the side on which the petitioner was going but it is not in dispute that it was a head on collision and if the petitioner was exercising due care and caution he could have tried to avoid the accident. The mechanical inspection reports of the two vehicles also show damage to the front side of the vehicles which shows that it was a head on collision. The respondent No.1 who is the driver and owner of the offending Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 17 of 27 vehicle has not adduced any evidence to dispute the version put forth by the petitioner or in the criminal record. The criminal record has been placed on record which shows that the respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 279/337 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 respondent No.1 has also not led any evidence to prove any other version of the accident. 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. However it is clear that the petitioner had also contributed to the happening of the accident and the negligence of the petitioner is apportioned as 25% and of the respondent No.1 as 75%.
16. It was stated that due to the accident the petitioner received grievous injuries. The MLC of the petitioner is on record as per which the nature of injuries was opined to be simple. Thus it stands established that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the alleged accident. This issue is decided accordingly.
Suit No.153/14
Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 18 of 27 Issue No.2
17. 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 nonpecuniary 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
18. The case of the petitioner is that due to the accident on 8.10.2012 he sustained grievous injuries. It was averred that the petitioner was removed to 3 Wing Air Force Palam Hospital, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi from the place of accident where he was admitted and was getting treatment for the injuries received in the accident and thereafter he got treatment at Base Hospital, New Delhi. It was stated that the petitioner suffered grievous fracture injuries in left side of the chest and injury to right knee and other multiple injuries all over the body. It was averred that the petitioner had spent Rs.50,000/ on treatment, medicine, conveyance and special diets and he was likely to spend much more on the said heads in future and he was still under active treatment. Suit No.153/14
Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 19 of 27 It was averred that the petitioner had suffered and was still suffering from great pain, mental torture and shock besides financial loss. It was averred that the health of the petitioner had deteriorated due to the injury received in the accident and he was also suffering monthly financial loss. Due to the injuries, the life span of the petitioner had also been considerably reduced. It was averred that the accident had ruined the petitioner physically, practically, mentally and financially. The petitioner in paras 1 to 4 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. He stated that after the accident he was removed to 3 Wing Air Force Palam Hospital, and thereafter, Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi, where he got treatment of the injuries received due to the accident and further operation was recommended by the doctor in March. He stated that he had spent about Rs.30,000/ on his treatment till date, Rs.20,000/ on conveyance and Rs.20,000/ on special diet, and was likely to spend much more on the said heads in future. He stated that he was suffering from great pain, mental torture, mental agony, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, and financial loss on attendant and shock besides financial losses. Due to the accidental injuries he was on leave from 08.10.2012 to 23.10.2012 and again on leave from 12.11.2012 to 07.12.2012 that is about 41 days. His life span had been ruined and his life had been shortened due to the accident. Treatment record is Ex.PW1/1 (colly) and leave certificate is Ex.PW1/3. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the nature of injuries was opined to be simple. There is one document dated 27.12.2013 that states fracture distal phalanx of right great toe Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 20 of 27 but that is of more than one year after the accident and there is nothing in the documents of the period after the accident to show any fracture and there is nothing to show that the said document pertains to the accident in question and there is also nothing to show continuous treatment from the time of the accident till 27.12.2013. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner had sustained any disability in the accident.
19. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 PW1 admitted that being an employee of Air Force, he got free medical facilities. He stated that he pays income tax. He did not show the amount of Rs.30,000/, Rs.20,000/ and Rs.25,000/ mentioned in para No.2 of his affidavit in his ITR. He stated that he was not aware that if he had spent the amounts as stated, he had to compulsorily show the same in his ITR. He stated that no document to show the expenditure on the said amounts had been placed on record. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent any amount as mentioned in para 2 of his affidavit. He stated that he had not informed his department about the filing of the present claim petition for Rs. 10,00,000/. He denied the suggestion that he did not spend any amount on his treatment and as such the amount was variously mentioned as Rs.50,000/ or Rs.20,000/. Thus PW1 admitted that being an employee of Air Force, he got free medical facilities. He also stated that did not show the amount of Rs. 30,000/, Rs.20,000/ and Rs.25,000/ mentioned in para No.2 of his affidavit in his ITR and that no document to show the expenditure on the said amounts Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 21 of 27 had been placed on record. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner had sustained injuries and underwent treatment for the same. The petitioner had stated that he had spent an amount of Rs.30,000/ on his medical treatment but no bill showing the said expenditure has been placed on record and admittedly the petitioner being an employee of Air Force got free medical facilities. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/ towards medical treatment and expenses.
20. Note can also be taken of the fact that on account of the accident the petitioner may not have been able to perform his day to day duties towards his family and may not have been able to enjoy the amenities of life and would have undergone pain and suffering. No document has been placed on record regarding expenditure on conveyance, special diet or attendant charges. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 PW1 admitted that being an employee of Air Force, he got free medical facilities. He stated that he pays income tax. He did not show the amount of Rs.30,000/, Rs.20,000/ and Rs.25,000/ mentioned in para No.2 of his affidavit in his ITR. He stated that he was not aware that if he had spent the amounts as stated, he had to compulsorily show the same in his ITR. He stated that no document to show the expenditure on the said amounts had been placed on record. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent any amount as mentioned in para 2 of his affidavit. There is thus nothing to show any expenditure on these counts. There is also nothing to show that the injuries of the petitioner were Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 22 of 27 such that he might have to incur extra expenditure on special diet or attendant charges. However it can be taken note of that he might have had to spend some amount on conveyance.
LOSS OF INCOME
21. It is the case of the petitioner that he was 31 years old and working with Indian Air Force and earning Rs.62,124/ p.m. It was averred that the petitioner had suffered and was still suffering from great pain, mental torture and shock besides financial loss. It was averred that the health of the petitioner had deteriorated due to the injury received in the accident and he was also suffering monthly financial loss. It was averred that the accident had ruined the petitioner physically, practically, mentally and financially. PW1 in paras 2, 3 and 4 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. He stated that he was suffering from great pain, mental torture, mental agony, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, and financial loss on attendant and shock besides financial losses. He stated that he was working in Indian Air Force as a Flt Ltn and at the time of the accident his monthly salary was about Rs.71,520/. Due to the accidental injuries he was on leave from 08.10.2012 to 23.10.2012 and again on leave from 12.11.2012 to 07.12.2012 that is about 41 days. He stated that he lost pecuniary and nonpecuniary benefits and other special and general damage as admissible under the law. Leave certificate is Ex.PW1/3 and salary slip is Mark X. Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 23 of 27
22. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 PW1 stated that he is a commissioned officer in the Air Force. The Government had not deducted any amount from the emoluments received by him from 08.10.12 till date. He stated that he had not raised any claim on the Government from 08.10.2012 till date relating to the accident in question. Thus PW1 stated that he is a commissioned officer in the Air Force. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of his pay slip for the month of July, 2012 which is Mark X and though the same has not been got proved it shows the total salary of the petitioner as Rs.62,124/. However the transport allowance of Rs.5,280/ cannot be included for computing the income for the purpose of compensation. During examination by the Tribunal the petitioner stated that he is 31 years old at present. He stated that at the time of the accident he was working as Flight Lieutenant and was earning Rs.64,000/ p.m. and even at present he was in the same rank. He stated that on account of the accident he had not been able to participate in Air Force activities till date. However nothing has been brought on record to show the same.
23. The petitioner had stated about the leaves availed by him and during crossexamination he stated that the Government had not deducted any amount from the emoluments received by him from 08.10.12 till date. He stated that he had not raised any claim on the Government from 08.10.2012 till date relating to the accident in question. Thus as per the petitioner himself there had been no deduction from his emoluments from 8.10.2012 till date. The Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 24 of 27 leave certificate is Ex.PW1/3 and the same shows the leaves taken by the petitioner and even Ex.PW1/1 shows that he was recommended 3 weeks of annual leave. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs.75,000/ on account of loss of income for the period for which he was not able to work.
24. 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 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 income.
25. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion a lump sum amount of Rs.84,000/ would be just and reasonable. However as the negligence of the petitioner has been apportioned as 25% he would be entitled to 75% of Rs.84,000/ i.e. Rs.63,000/. Accordingly an amount of Rs.63,000/ is awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioner. RELIEF
26. The petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.63,000/ (Rs.Sixty Three Thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 25 of 27 the DAR till its realization (except for the period from 02.05.2014 till the date of the award in terms of order dated 10.07.2014) including, interim award, if any already passed against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the award amount directly in 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. The petitioner shall file his complete address as well as address of his counsel for sending the notice of deposit of the award amount. APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
27. The respondent No.1 is the driver and owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Thus the respondents No.1 and 2 are held jointly and severally liable. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 i.e. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited being the insurance company in its reply had admitted that the vehicle bearing registration No.DL13CC1150 was insured with the respondent No.2 vide policy No.OG 13 1103 1801 00007747 issued for the period from 31.07.2012 to 30.07.2013 in the name of Mr. Anup Singhal. There is no evidence on behalf of respondent No.2 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondent No.1 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.2 being the insurance Suit No.153/14 Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 26 of 27 company in respect of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 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 with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of DAR as directed in para 26 of the judgment cum award failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
28. 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 respondent No.2 shall deposit the award amount along with interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimants 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 04.02.2015.
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 3rd day of November, 2014 (GEETANJLI GOEL)
PO: MACT2
New Delhi.
Suit No.153/14
Shwetank Rana Vs. Anoop Singh Page no. 27 of 27