Delhi District Court
Gopal Singh vs . Joni & Ors on 10 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SAMAR VISHAL
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
CNR No. : DLET01-007864-2017
MACT No. 283/19
Gopal Singh Vs. Joni & Ors
In the matter of :
Gopal Singh (Injured)
S/o Amar Singh
R/o H.No. A-53,
Top Floor, Ganesh Nagar,
Pandav Nagar Complex
Delhi-110092
Now deceased
Represented through his legal heirs-
(i) Smt. Chanchal
W/o Late Gopal Singh Chaudhary
(ii) Anubhav
S/o Late Gopal Singh Chaudhary
(iii) Khushi Choudhary
f/o Late Gopal Singh Chaudhary
(iv) Riya Choudhary
W/o Late Gopal Singh Chaudhary .....................Petitioner
Versus
MACT No. 283/19
Gopal Singh Vs. Joni & Ors Page 1 of 11
1. Joni (Driver)
S/o Banarasi Das
R/o- H.No.B-295,
Rajvir Colony
Gharoli Extn.
Kondli Delhi-110096
2. Delhi Waste Management Ltd. (Owner)
27/2, Okhla Industrial Area Phase II,
New Delhi
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
New Delhi - 110019 ..................Respondents
Date of Institution : 10.07.2017
Date of Reserving : 27.10.2022
Date of Judgment : 10.11.2022
AWAR D
1. The present claim petition under section 166 clause (4) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is based on Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by the investigating officer of FIR No. 249/2017, which is also the number of the Traffic Accident Report.
2. In a vehicular accident which occurred on 05.06.2017 at about 2.15 p.m., the petitioner was grievously injured. The facts which gave rise to this petition are, that on that day, the petitioner was going on his scooty MACT No. 283/19 Gopal Singh Vs. Joni & Ors Page 2 of 11 no. DL 7SBR-3460 to his home. When petitioner Gopal Singh was passing from Geeta Colony to Akshardham Flyover, respondent no.1,Joni the driver of the MCD garbage cleaning Tata ACE registration no. DL 1LS 1331, on which EDMC Ward No. 229 was printed, reversed it, in a rash and negligent manner and ran it over on his scooty, due to which he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. According to his evidence, petitioner was working as wall paper fixer and earning Rs.50,000/- per month.
3. The respondents filed their statements. The respondent no.1 Joni, the driver of the offending truck has taken the defence that he holds a valid driving licence and was falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that the accident did not occur from his vehicle. Respondent no. 2, the owner of the offending vehicle opposed the petition stating that the accident happened due to the fault of the petitioner as he dashed his scooty into its vehicle from the back side. Respondent no. 2 further stated that the driver had the valid licence and the vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company. The respondent no. 3 insurance company has taken the general defences and stated that the accident happened due to the negligence of the petitioner himself and not due to respondent no.1.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed on 24.10.2017 : -
(i) Whether Mr. Gopal Singh suffered grievous injury in a motor vehicular accident on 05.06.2017 at about 2.15 p.m. at Pusta Road, Akshardham Flyover, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Shakarpur due to rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1 LS 1331 (TATA ACE)by the respondent No. 1?(OPP) MACT No. 283/19 Gopal Singh Vs. Joni & Ors Page 3 of 11
(ii) Whether there was breach of any term and condition of Insurance Policy, if so, its effect?(OPR3)
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the award amount, if so, at what rate of interest and for which period?(OPP)
(v) Relief?
5. In order to establish his claim, petitioner Gopal Singh has examined himself as PW-1 but the respondents did not lead any evidence.
6. The issues are decided as follows-
ISSUE NO.1: Whether Mr. Gopal Singh suffered grievous injury in a motor vehicular accident on 05.06.2017 at about 2.15 p.m. at Pusta Road, Akshardham Flyover, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Shakarpur due to rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1 LS 1331 (TATA ACE)by the respondent No. 1? (OPP)
7. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and in fact is the preponderance of probabilities which is applied in civil cases. It is also the law that the tribunal is not bound by the technical rules of evidence. Further in holding any inquiry under section 168, The Claims Tribunal may follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.
MACT No. 283/19 Gopal Singh Vs. Joni & Ors Page 4 of 118. In the case of Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Another (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while delineating on the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases observed that the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ("the Act"), for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured , comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.MACT No. 283/19 Gopal Singh Vs. Joni & Ors Page 5 of 11
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under head (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the head (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of the actuals and are easily ascertainable from evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for future treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - item (iv), (v) and (vi) involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury, deprivation, disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant.
9. Now in this case, the petitioner is the injured and witness of the accident. In order to establish his claim, petitioner Gopal Singh has examined himself as PW-1 and proved photocopy of his Aadhar card Mark A, photocopy of his driving licence Ex.PW1/1, letter head of his wall paper work Ex.PW1/2, DAR Ex.PW1/3 and photocopy of bills and medical papers Mark B. He also stated on oath in the affidavit about the MACT No. 283/19 Gopal Singh Vs. Joni & Ors Page 6 of 11 accident and how it was caused. He has clearly deposed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1, who was the driver of the truck. He has deposed that on 05.06.2017 at about 2.15 p.m. he was going on his scooty no. DL 7SBR-3460 to his home. When he was passing from Geeta Colony to Akshardham Flyover, respondent no.1 Joni, the driver of the MCD garbage cleaning Tata ACE registration no. DL 1LS 1331, on which EDMC Ward No. 229 was printed, reversed it, in a rash and negligent manner and ran it over on his scooty, due to which he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries.
10. None of the respondents have led any evidence to prove anything contrary to claim of petitioner nor proved the defence taken by then in their written statements that the accident happened due to the negligence of the petitioner and not respondent no. 1.
11. The MLC, discharge summary and other treatment records of the petitioner shows he suffered grievous injury in this case which was a fracture in his leg.
12. In view of above, it is proved that petitioner sustained grievous injuries due to rash and negligent act of respondent no. 1, the driver of the offending truck. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2. Whether there was breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, if so, its effect?(OPR3)
13. The burden to prove this issue was on the respondent no. 3, the insurance company but it has not led any evidence to prove it. Therefore, this issue is decided against the respondent no.3.
MACT No. 283/19 Gopal Singh Vs. Joni & Ors Page 7 of 11ISSUE No. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
14. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. The compensation should not be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance.
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
15. Petitioner has not clearly stated in his evidence affidavit that what amount of money he spent in his medical treatment. However, he has exhibited his medical bills as Ex.PW1/4(Colly), the calculation of which was provided by petitioner's counsel as Rs.1,81,273/-. Learned counsel for insurance company during arguments has stated that the respondent no. 3/insurance company has no objection if the petitioners being compensated with respect to these bills but has stated that since the petitioner has now passed away and this petition is being prosecuted by his legal heirs, they shall not be entitled for any compensation in other heads like pain and suffering as these were personal to the deceased. I will deal with this contention later.
16. In view of the fact that the petitioner has proved his medical bills to the tune of Rs. 1,81,273/-, I award the same under this head to the petitioners.
PAIN AND SUFFERING:
16. Though the insurance company has opposed compensation under this head but considering the fact that the rights of the petitioner crystallised MACT No. 283/19 Gopal Singh Vs. Joni & Ors Page 8 of 11 on the date of accident and had the petitioner got the compensation before his death, he would have been entitled for compensation under this head and then it would have become a part of his estate.
Accordingly, I find it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT :
17. Petitioner has claimed that he used to do the work of wall papers but except his statement, there is no other proof of his income. Accordingly, the notional income of the deceased can be fixed at minimum wages at the time accident in June 2017 which was Rs.13,584/- for unskilled worker. (Manusha Sreekumar and Others vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 7593/2022 dated 17/10/2022-Supreme Court-2022 LiveLaw(SC) 858). Therefore, in that event, petitioner's income is taken as Rs.13,584/-per month. Further though the hospitalisation was only for few days as per discharge summary, and there is no further evidence for what period the petitioner was unable to work but it is not difficult to presume that in case of fracture he must have been disabled from work for at least one month as this would have been the minimum time to heel his wound. Accordingly, I award Rs.13,584/- compensation under this head. Therefore, his loss of income for one month is calculated as Rs.13,584/-.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
18. The petitioner has not proved any actual expenses in relation to these heads and has not placed any material on record to substantiate the said expenses. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit to grant Rs.5,000/- each to petitioner as conveyance and special diet charges.
MACT No. 283/19 Gopal Singh Vs. Joni & Ors Page 9 of 1119. Though no evidence has been led to show that petitioner had hired any attendant during his treatment but it cannot be ignored that family members of petitioner must have had to render their services for providing assistance to the petitioner for his routine activities and that would definitely suffer their work/job. For claiming compensation, necessity of employing a professional attendant/ care taker is not required and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the family members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver. ( DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ
253). Therefore, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as attendant charges.
20. Thus, petitioner is granted a total compensation of Rs.15,000/- (5,000+5,000+5,000) under this head.
21. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1 Medical Expenses Rs. 1,81,273
2 Pain & Sufferings Rs.25,000/-
Loss of income (during Rs. 13,584/-
3
treatment)
5 Conveyance & Special diet Rs.10,000/-
6 Attendant charges Rs.5,000
TOTAL Rs.2,34,857/-
RELIEF:
22. In view of the findings on above points, I as presiding officer of this Tribunal award a total compensation of Rs.2,34,857 /- (Rs. Two Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty Seven only) along with interest @ 7% per annum on the aforesaid award amount from the MACT No. 283/19 Gopal Singh Vs. Joni & Ors Page 10 of 11 date of filing of the petition till realization in favour of petitioner against the respondent no.3, insurance company. This award is required to be deposited with this Tribunal within 30 days. The interest period shall exclude the period from 24.08.2017 till 21.11.2019 (the date on which the evidence of petitioner was completed) in compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 24.08.2017 as petitioner was seeking unwarranted adjournments and delaying the inquiry.
23. Form IV-B in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure A. Announced in the open Samar Vishal Court on 10.11.2022 Presiding Officer-MACT (East) (Total 11 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi MACT No. 283/19 Gopal Singh Vs. Joni & Ors Page 11 of 11