Delhi District Court
Rajoo Rani vs . Shri Devanand & Ors. on 28 August, 2018
Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,
JUDGE, MACT-1 (CENTRAL), THC, DELHI
Suit no. 103/12
MACT No. 356389/16
ID Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000139-2012
1. Sh. Rajoo Rani
W/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o 480, Mantola, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhil-110055.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Devanand
S/o Sh. Radho Yadav,
C/o Hunny Sardar,
Arakasha Road, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi-110055
Also at:-
Village Sondia.
P.S. Patna, Bihar
...........Respondent No.1
(Driver)
2. M/s Mittal Tour & Travels Prop. Of Mr. Yogesh Mittal, 8563, Arakasha Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 ...........Respondent No.2 (Vehicle & Driver provider) MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 1 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Devision no. 11, 2nd Floor, 6/90, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
...........Respondent No.3 (Insurer)
4. Smt. Sheela Devi Mittal W/o Sh. Mohan Lal, R/o 5490, Shora Koti, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 ...........Respondent No.4 (Owner) AND Suit no. 104/12 MACT No. 356390/16 ID Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000140-2012
1. Master Aviral Tomar (Minor) Through his father Sh. RP Tomar, R/o M-116B, Street No. 8, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 .......Petitioner VERSUS MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 2 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
1. Sh. Devanand S/o Sh. Radho Yadav, C/o Hunny Sardar, Arakasha Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 Also at:-
Village Sondia.
P.S. Patna, Bihar ...........Respondent No.1 (Driver)
2. M/s Mittal Tour & Travels Prop. Of Mr. Yogesh Mittal, 8563, Arakasha Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 ...........Respondent No.2 (Vehicle & Driver provider)
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Devision no. 11, 2nd Floor, 6/90, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
...........Respondent No.3 (Insurer)
4. Smt. Sheela Devi Mittal W/o Sh. Mohan Lal, R/o 5490, Shora Koti, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 ...........Respondent No.4 (Owner) MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 3 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
AND Suit no. 105/12 MACT No. 356391/16 ID Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000141-2012
1. Smt. Radhika W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar R/o 480, Mantola, Pahar Ganj, New Delhil-110055 .......Petitioner VERSUS
1. Sh. Devanand S/o Sh. Radho Yadav, C/o Hunny Sardar, Arakasha Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 Also at:-
Village Sondia.
P.S. Patna, Bihar ...........Respondent No.1 (Driver)
2. M/s Mittal Tour & Travels Prop. Of Mr. Yogesh Mittal, 8563, Arakasha Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 ...........Respondent No.2 (Vehicle & Driver provider) MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 4 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Devision no. 11, 2nd Floor, 6/90, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
...........Respondent No.3 (Insurer)
4. Smt. Sheela Devi Mittal W/o Sh. Mohan Lal, R/o 5490, Shora Koti, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 ...........Respondent No.4 (Owner) AND Suit no. 106/12 MACT No. 357018/16 ID Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000654-2012
1. Sh. Rakesh Kumar W/o Sh. Shyam Lal R/o 480, Mantola, Pahar Ganj, New Delhil-110055 .......Petitioner VERSUS
1. Sh. Devanand S/o Sh. Radho Yadav, C/o Hunny Sardar, MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 5 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Arakasha Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 Also at:-
Village Sondia.
P.S. Patna, Bihar ...........Respondent No.1 (Driver)
2. M/s Mittal Tour & Travels Prop. Of Mr. Yogesh Mittal, 8563, Arakasha Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 ...........Respondent No.2 (Vehicle & Driver provider)
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Devision no. 11, 2nd Floor, 6/90, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
...........Respondent No.3 (Insurer)
4. Smt. Sheela Devi Mittal W/o Sh. Mohan Lal, R/o 5490, Shora Koti, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 ...........Respondent No.4 (Owner) Date of filing of claim petitions : 06.03.2012 Arguments heard on : 30.07.2018 Date of passing of Award : 28.08.2018 MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 6 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Present: Sh. R P Tomar, Advocate, counsel for petitioners Respondent No. 1 is ex-parte Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.2 & 4 Sh. M P Sahi, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.3 AWARD:
1. Above four claim suits are the subject matter of this award as all the claim suits have arisen from the same motor vehicular accident which took place on 06.09.2011 within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali, Kosi Kalan, Mathura, UP.
2. Though the accident had not taken place within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, yet claim suits have been filed before this Tribunal as petitioners have been residing in Delhi. Besides that respondent no. 2 to 4 have also been working for gain within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
3. Present claim petitions have been preferred under section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short MV Act). In MACT Suit No. 356389/16 claimant claimed a compensation of ` 5 Lac; in MACT Suit No. 356390/16 claimant Master Aviral Tomar claimed a compensation of ` 4 MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 7 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
lac; in MACT Suit No. 356391/16 claimant Radhika Rani claimed a compensation of ` 6 lac and in MACT No. 357018/16 claimant Rakesh Kumar claimed a compensation of ` 5 lac.
4. Facts in brief as emerged from the claim petitions are that on 06.09.2011 petitioners had hired Tavera car bearing registration no. DL1YA 4071 from respondent no. 2 M/s Mittal Tour and Travel for going to Mathura, Vrindavan. It was alleged that respondent no. 2 sent the above said car alongwith its driver Devanand (respondent no.1). It was alleged that petitioners left from their residence at 6.00am on 06.09.2011. It was alleged that while they were returning to Delhi and reached near Mangala hospital at about 8:30 p.m, driver of the car was driving the car at fast speed in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn. It was alleged that when respondent no. 1 was overtaking the truck bearing no. UP 78BT 2178 respondent no. 1 hit the car in the said truck. All the claimants sustained multiple injuries and they were taken to Mangla hospital, Arya Nagar, Mathura, UP. After taking the first aid, petitioners came Jeevan Mala Hospital, Rohtak Road, New Delhi.
(i). It was alleged that the accident had taken place due to the sheer rash and negligence of respondent no.
1. It was further submitted that since the car was being driven MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 8 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
by respondent no. 1 and it was registered in the name of respondent no. 4 and was operated by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3, all are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
5. The Claim petitions are contested by respondent no. 2 to 4 by filing their separate written statement.
(i) Respondent No. 2 and 4 took the plea that car was not registered in the name of respondent no. 2 but it was registered in the name of respondent no. 4. It was further submitted that driver of the car was Raman Singh and not respondent no. 1. It was further stated that no accident had taken place as alleged by the petitioners. Though minor accident had taken place at Nari Gaon at about 7.30 pm, but since in the said accident petitioners sustained only minor injury, they did not inform the police and the matter was settled between the driver of both the vehicles. It was further submitted that since car was duly insured with respondent no. 3 and Raman Singh was having a valid license, liability if any, insurance company is liable to indemnify the same.
(ii) Respondent no. 3 fairly admitted that the car was duly insured with it, but took the plea that since the accident had taken place due to the negligence of truck driver, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 9 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
(iii) Respondent no. 1 did not contest the petition and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.11.2013
6. Vide order dated 11.04.2014, following issues were framed:-
MACT SUIT No. 356389/16:
(i) Whether the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident which took place on 06.09.2011 within the jurisdiction of PS Kosi Kalan Mathura, UP due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1YA-4071 by Respondent no. 1?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 10 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
MACT SUIT No. 356390/16:
(i) Whether the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident which took place on 06.09.2011 within the jurisdiction of PS Kosi Kalan Mathura, UP due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1YA-4071 by Respondent no. 1?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
MACT SUIT No. 356391/16:
(i) Whether the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident which took place on 06.09.2011 within the jurisdiction of PS Kosi Kalan Mathura, UP due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 11 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
registration No. DL-1YA-4071 by Respondent no. 1?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
MACT SUIT No. 357018/16:
(i) Whether the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident which took place on 06.09.2011 within the jurisdiction of PS Kosi Kalan Mathura, UP due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1YA-4071 by Respondent no. 1?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 12 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
7. In order to prove their case, petitioners examined following witnesses:-
MACT SUIT No. 356389/16:
PW1 Ms. Rajoo Rani, Injured/claimant MACT SUIT No. 356390/16:
PW1 Sh. R P Tomar father of the injured MACT SUIT No. 356391/16:
PW1 Ms. Radhika Rani, injured/claimant MACT SUIT No. 357018/16:
PW1 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, injured/claimant
(i) In rebuttal, respondent no. 2 examined Sh.
Yogesh Mittal as R2W1 in all the matters, whereas respondent no. 3 examined Mr. Gaurav Mittal, Administrative Officer, Legal Department as R3W1. Respondent no. 4 examined Sh. Mohan Lal as R4W1 in all the matters.
8. On completion of evidence led by both the MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 13 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
parties, statement of petitioners were recorded on 23.11.2017 in compliance of clause 26 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & ors. vs. Jaivir Singh & ors. decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 12, 2014 in all the claim matters.
9. I have heard submissions advanced by counsel for petitioners and respondents perused the record carefully gave my thoughtful consideration to the contentions.
My issues wise findings are as under:-
Issue no. 1 in all the matters:-
10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 & 4 contended that the Tavera car was being driven by Raman Singh and not by respondent no.1. It was urged that respondent No.1 was not their driver. It was further argued that no accident had taken place with the Tavera Car in question. It was further contended that since there was inordinate delay in lodging FIR, no reliance can be placed on the statement of petitioners. It was further argued that after conducting investigation, police arrived at the conclusion that no accident had taken place between Tavera car and Truck as alleged by the petitioners; rather Tavera car collided in the central verge and due to that reason FIR was got cancelled.
MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 14 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
(i) Per contra counsel appearing for the petitioners refuted the said contentions by arguing that the accident had taken place between Tavera car and Truck and this fact even admitted by the respondent no. 2 and 4 in their statement. It was further submitted that mere fact that there was some delay in registration of the FIR is not sufficient to disbelieve the case of petitioners, particularly when accident in question was not disputed by the respondents. It was further argued that no reliance can be placed on the final report submitted by the police as police had filed the same in collision with respondent no. 2 and 4. It was further argued that when the car was hired, respondent no. 2 deputed Devanand as a driver.
11. First question arises for adjudication who was driving the car at the time of accident whether it was being driven by Devanand as alleged by the petitioners or Raman Singh as alleged by respondent no. 2 & 4?
(i) Petitioners in their deposition categorically deposed that car was being driven by Devanand. As per petitioners version, the car was hired by the PW Rakesh Kumar. In his cross examination PW Rakesh Kumar testified that he had hired the car one day prior to the accident and paid ` 500/- as advanced. The total amount for the trip was settled MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 15 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
at ` 5,000/-. He categorically deposed that car was being driven by respondent no. 1 Devanand. He denied the suggestion that car was being driven by Raman Singh.
(ii) In this regard, testimony of R2W1 and R4W1 is also relevant. R2W1 is the son of respondent no. 4 and proprietor of respondent no. 2. He testified that two vehicles were registered in his name whereas two vehicles were registered in the name of his mother i.e. respondent no.4. He further testified that no vehicle was registered in the name of the firm. Initially he deposed that the vehicles registered in the name of respondent no. 4 were not attached with his firm, but subsequently, he admitted that the said vehicles were also attached with his firm. He further deposed that the vehicle in question was neither hired by Rakesh Kumar nor he deputed the respondent no. 1 as driver on the said vehicle. Since, R2W1 deposed that neither the vehicle was hired by Rakesh from him nor he deputed respondent no. 1 on the said vehicle, his testimony is not helpful to the respondents to establish that the vehicle in question was being driven by Raman Singh and not by respondent no.1.
(iii) R4W1 is the husband of respondent no. 4. He deposed that his driver picked up the passengers from hotel to go Mathura. He further deposed that he did not know if the vehicle was hired by Rakesh Kumar. From the claim suits it MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 16 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
is clear that all the petitioners are resident of Pahar Ganj, thus the testimony of R4W1 that passengers were picked up from the Hotel does not inspire any confidence. Further, since the vehicle was not hired in the presence of R4W1, he can not say whether it was hired by Rakesh or not. Similarly, he cannot who was driver of the said vehicle.
(iv). Now coming to the alleged compromise Ex. R4W1/3. As per respondents' version the said agreement had taken place between Raman Singh and driver of the truck. Admittedly, the said document had been executed on 07.09.2011 whereas the accident had taken place on 06.09.2011 at about 7.30 p.m. As per the deposition of R2W1 and R4W1, the alleged compromise took place on the day of accident but the said document does not support their version. Further, since in the said accident, injuries were caused to the petitioners and not to Raman Singh and admittedly, petitioners are not the parties to the said compromise. Even during inquiry neither driver of the truck nor alleged driver of the car i.e. Raman Singh appeared in the witness box. Admittedly, the said compromise had not taken place in the presence of either R2W1 or R4W1. Similarly, respondents did not examine the police official in whose presence the alleged agreement had taken place. Even the name and designation of the police official is not mentioned in the said document. In these circumstances, I am of the view that said document is not MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 17 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
helpful to prove that the car was being driven by Raman Singh and not be respondent no. 1.
(v) R4W1 in his cross-examination admitted that he had no enmity with the petitioners, it means that petitioners had no reason to depose falsely that the vehicle in question was being driven by respondent no. 1. Further, since petitioners were travelling in the car in question, they are more trustworthy persons to state who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. In the absence of any cogent contrary evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of petitioners.
(vi) In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the vehicle in question at the time of accident was being driven by respondent no. 1?
12. Now coming to the next limb of arguments whether the accident in question had taken place due to the rash or negligent driving of respondent no.1?.
(i) No doubt the FIR was lodged on 08.10.2011 while the accident had taken place on 06.09.2011. But respondent no. 2 & 4 in their deposition categorically admitted that the accident had taken place but took the plea that the matter was compromised between drivers of both the vehicles MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 18 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
and in the said accident petitioners sustained only minor injuries. This shows that occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. Since, the accident is not in dispute, delay in registration of FIR is not fatal to the petitioners claim in any manner.
(ii) No doubt police filed the cancellation report in the FIR stating that no truck was involved in the accident; rather car in question collided with the central verge. Assuming for the sake for arguments that the car in question was collided with the central verge and due to that reason petitioners sustained injuries, but this is not helpful to the respondents in any manner. Since, the car was collided with the central verge, it shows that its driver was negligent otherwise there was no reason that car could hit the central verge. Petitioners deposed categorically that respondent no.1 was driving the car at fast speed, this show that the car collided with the central verge as it was being driven at fast speed. This proves rashness and negligence on the part of respondent no. 1.
(iii) Petitioners categorically deposed that the accident had taken place when respondent no. 1 was trying to overtake the truck at fast speed without blowing horn and in that process respondent hit in the truck. This further shows that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligence of respondent no. 1.
MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 19 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
(iv) In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that there are sufficient evidence to prove that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1.
(v) In view of the above, Issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.2 in all the matters:
MACT SUIT NO. 356389/16 (Rajoo Rani):
13. As per record, claimant has sustained simple injuries and she had incurred ` 5,001/- on her medical treatment. The bills are Ex. PW1/13 to Ex. PW1/18. During inquiry, no contrary evidence has been led, which may raise any suspicion over the said bills. Thus, this Tribunal has no reason to disbelieve the same.
(i) Considering the fact that she had incurred a sum of ` 5,001/- on her medical treatment and sustained simple injury, in lump-sum, total compensation of ` 25,000/- is awarded to her.
(ii) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 20 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 06.03.2012 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT:
14. On realization, entire award amount of ` 25,000/- with entire interest shall be released to her forthwith and in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017. The above said amount shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence.
15. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format-
IV B is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 8.10.2011
(ii) Name of the injured Rajoo Rani
(iii) Age of the injured 65 years
(iv) Occupation of the NA injured
(v) Income of the injured NA MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 21 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
(vi) Nature of injury Simple (vii) Medical treatment taken Jeevan Mala Hospital, Delhi by the injured (viii) Period of hospitalization NA hospitalization (ix) Whether any permanent No
disability? If yes, give details:
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (IN `)
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment NA (ii) Expenditure on conveyance NA (iii) Expenditure on special diet NA (iv) Cost of nursing/attendant NA (v) Loss of earning capacity NA (vi) Loss of income - (vii) Any other loss which may require any NA
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical shock including medical bills 25,000/-
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life/compensation
other heads
(iv) Disfiguration NA
MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 22 of 40
Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NA
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, NA hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
(vii) Less contributory negligence NA
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and NA nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NIL expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity No in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income-(Income x% No Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14 Total Compensation (Rounded off) 25,000/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount upto the date of award 14,572/-
06 years 05 months 22 days
17. Total amount including interest 39,572
18. Award amount release 25,000/- plus entire interest
19. Award amount kept in FDRs NIL
20. Mode of disbursement of the award as mentioned in amount to the claimants (s) (Clause Para no. 12
29)
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 05.10.2018 (Clause 31.) MACT SUIT NO. 356390/16 (Mst. Aviral Tomar):
MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 23 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
16. As per record, claimant has sustained simple injuries and he remained under treatment till 08.09.2011. Petitioner had incurred ` 7,382/- on his medical treatment. The bills are Ex. PW1/10 to Ex. PW1/17. During inquiry, no contrary evidence has been led, which may raise any suspicion over the said bills. Thus, this Tribunal has no reason to disbelieve the same.
(i) Considering the fact that claimant had incurred a sum of ` 7,382/- on his medical treatment and sustained simple injury, in lump-sum, total compensation of ` 28,000/- is awarded to him.
(ii) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 06.03.2012 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT:
17. Since the claimant already attained the age of majority, on realization, entire award amount of ` 28,000/-
with entire interest shall be released to him forthwith and in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017. The above said amount shall automatically be transferred in his saving account MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 24 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of his residence.
18. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format- IV B is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 8.10.2011
(ii) Name of the injured Aviral Tomar
(iii) Age of the injured 21 years
(iv) Occupation of the NA injured
(v) Income of the injured NA
(vi) Nature of injury Simple
(vii) Medical treatment taken Jeevan Mala Hospital, Delhi by the injured
(viii) Period of hospitalization NA hospitalization
(ix) Whether any permanent No disability? If yes, give details:
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (IN `) MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 25 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment NA (ii) Expenditure on conveyance NA (iii) Expenditure on special diet NA (iv) Cost of nursing/attendant NA (v) Loss of earning capacity NA (vi) Loss of income - (vii) Any other loss which may require any NA
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical shock, Including medical bills 28,000/-
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life/compensation
other heads
(iv) Disfiguration NA
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NA
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, NA
hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
(vii) Less contributory negligence NA
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and NA nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NIL expectation of life span on account of disability MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 26 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity No in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income-(Income x% No Earning Capacity x Multiplier) 14 Total Compensation (Rounded off) 28,000/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount upto the date of award 16,322 06 years 05 months 22 days
17. Total amount including interest 44,322
18. Award amount release 28,000/- plus entire interest
19. Award amount kept in FDRs NIL
20. Mode of disbursement of the award as mentioned in amount to the claimants (s) (Clause Para no. 12
29)
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 05.10.2018 (Clause 31.) In MACT Suit No. 356391/16 (Radhika):
19. As per record, claimant has sustained simple injuries and she remained under treatment till 08.09.2011. She had incurred ` 1,108/- on her medical treatment. The bills are Ex. PW1/10 to Ex. PW1/13. During inquiry, no contrary evidence has been led, which may raise any suspicion over the said bills. Thus, this Tribunal has no reason to disbelieve the same.
(i) Considering the fact that she had incurred a sum of ` 1,108/- on her medical treatment and sustained MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 27 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
simple injury, in lump-sum, total compensation of ` 22,000/- is awarded to her.
(ii) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 06.03.2012 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT:
20. On realization, entire award amount of ` 22,000/- with entire interest shall be released to her forthwith and in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017. The above said amount shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence.
21. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format-
IV B is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 8.10.2011
(ii) Name of the injured Smt. Radhika MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 28 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
(iii) Age of the injured 27 years (iv) Occupation of the NA injured (v) Income of the injured NA (vi) Nature of injury Simple (vii) Medical treatment taken Jeevan Mala Hospital, Delhi by the injured (viii) Period of hospitalization NA hospitalization (ix) Whether any permanent No
disability? If yes, give details:
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (IN `)
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment NA (ii) Expenditure on conveyance NA (iii) Expenditure on special diet NA (iv) Cost of nursing/attendant NA (v) Loss of earning capacity NA (vi) Loss of income - (vii) Any other loss which may require any NA
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical shock including medical bills MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 29 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
(ii) Pain and suffering 22,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life/compensation
other heads
(iv) Disfiguration NA
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NA
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, NA
hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
(vii) Less contributory negligence NA
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and NA nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NIL expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity No in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income-(Income x% No Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14 Total Compensation (Rounded off) 22,000/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount upto the date of award 12,824/-
06 years 05 months 22 days
17. Total amount including interest 34,824
18. Award amount release 22,000/- plus entire interest
19. Award amount kept in FDRs NIL
20. Mode of disbursement of the award as mentioned in amount to the claimants (s) (Clause Para no. 12
29) MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 30 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 05.10.2018 (Clause 31.) MACT SUIT NO. 357018/16 (Rakesh Kumar):
22. As per record, claimant has sustained simple injuries and he remained under treatment till 07.09.2011. Petitioner had incurred ` 6,260/- on his medical treatment. The bills are Ex. PW1/11 to Ex. PW1/15. During inquiry, no contrary evidence has been led, which may raise any suspicion over the said bills. Thus, this Tribunal has no reason to disbelieve the same.
(i) Considering the fact that claimant had incurred a sum of ` 6,260/- on his medical treatment and sustained simple injury, in lump-sum, total compensation of ` 28,000/- is awarded to him.
(ii) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 06.03.2012 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT:
23. On realization, entire award amount of ` 28,000/- with entire interest shall be released to him forthwith and in terms of the directions contained in FAO MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 31 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017. The above said amount shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of his residence.
24. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format- IV B is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 8.10.2011
(ii) Name of the injured Rakesh Kumar
(iii) Age of the injured 37 years
(iv) Occupation of the NA injured
(v) Income of the injured NA
(vi) Nature of injury Simple
(vii) Medical treatment taken Dr. Sunder Lal Memorial by the injured Hospital, Delhi
(viii) Period of hospitalization NA hospitalization
(ix) Whether any permanent No disability? If yes, give details:
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 32 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal (IN `)
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment NA
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance NA
(iii) Expenditure on special diet NA
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant NA
(v) Loss of earning capacity NA
(vi) Loss of income -
(vii) Any other loss which may require any NA
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical shock including medical bills 28,000/-
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life/compensation
other heads
(iv) Disfiguration NA
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NA
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, NA
hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
(vii) Less contributory negligence NA
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and NA nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NIL MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 33 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity No in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income-(Income x% No Earning Capacity x Multiplier) 14 Total Compensation (Rounded off) 28,000/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount upto the date of award 16,322 06 years 05 months 22 days
17. Total amount including interest 44,322
18. Award amount release 28,000/- plus entire interest
19. Award amount kept in FDRs NIL
20. Mode of disbursement of the award as mentioned in amount to the claimants (s) (Clause Para no. 12
29)
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 05.10.2018 (Clause 31.) LIABILITY TO PAY:-
25. Learned counsel appearing for insurance company sagaciously argued that since the offending car was being driven by respondent no.1 without valid driving licence, insurance company is entitled for recovery rights.
(i) Per contra, counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 & 4 refuted the said contentions by arguing that the MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 34 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
damage claim of the car in question was lodged by the respondent no.4 before the insurance company claiming that the car was being driven by Raman Singh. It was further urged that after verifying the driving licence of Raman Singh, insurance company passed of claim of insured qua the damages caused to the vehicle. It was argued that since insurance company had already accepted the fact that the car was being driven by Raman Singh and his driving licence was found correct, insurance company can not escape from its liability. It was further submitted that respondent no.1 was not the employee of respondent no.4.
(ii). Indisputably, District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (Central) vide judgment Ex. PX, passed the order in favour of insured Smt. Sheela Devi Mittal (respondent No.4) and against the insurance company. In the said judgment on the basis of pleadings, District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (Central) accepted the plea of claimant (respondent no. 4) that the vehicle was being driven by Raman Singh and he was having a valid driving licence. However, perusal of the judgment reveals that before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (Central), no plea was taken by either of the parties that the vehicle was being driven by Devanand and not by Raman Singh. As already discussed that at the time of accident, vehicle was being driven by Devanand and not by Raman Singh. Admittedly, petitioners MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 35 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
were not the party before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (Central). Since, petitioners were not the party before the said Forum, Forum had no opportunity go consider the plea of the petitioners.
(iii). In the light of the evidence adduced before this Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the said judgment is not helpful to the insured to establish that the vehicle was being driven by Raman Singh and not by Devanand.
(iv). Insured (respondent No.4) never took the plea that Devanand was having a valid driving licence; rather she took the plea that Devanand was not driving the vehicle, which she failed to establish during inquiry. From the testimony of R3W1, it is clear that insurance company had issued a notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to the respondent No.1 and 4 asking them to produce the driving licence of respondent no.1, but they failed to produce the same. Even during inquiry, neither respondent no.1 nor respondent no.4 produced the driving licence of respondent no.1. Even respondent no.1 did not contest the claim suits. This clearly establishes that respondent no.1 was not having a driving licence at the time of accident.
(v). As already discussed that the police had filed the cancellation report, but even in the said report there is MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 36 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
no finding that the car was not being driven by Deva Nand or it was being driven by Raman Singh. Even in the said report, police did not verify whether Devanand was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident or not. Thus the said final report is also not helpful to respondent no. 2 & 4 to show that either the vehicle was being driven by Raman Singh or Devanand was having a valid driving licence.
(vi). In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that at the time of accident, Devanand was driving the car in question without having a valid driving licence.
(vii). Being the driver, respondent no.1 was not supposed to drive the car in question without valid driving licence. Similarly, being the registered owner, respondent no.4 was not supposed to allow respondent no.1 to drive the offending car without valid driving licence. Since, respondent no. 1 was found driving the car in question without any valid driving licence, respondent no. 1 & 4 violated the terms and conditions of the Policy.
(viii). In view of the above, insurance company is entitled for recovery rights qua respondent no. 1 & 4. In other words, insurance company is entitled to recover the award amount from them without filing a separate civil suit but after MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 37 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
satisfying the award.
(viii). Since offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 and it was registered in the name of respondent no.4 whereas same was insured with respondent no.3, all shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
(ix) In view of above, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 in all the matters.
RELIEF:
26. Since, offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, respondent no.3 is directed to deposit:
(a) a sum of ` 25,000/- in MACT No. 356389/16;
(b) a sum of ` 28,000/- in MACT No. 356390/16;
(c) a sum of ` 22,000/- in MACT No. 356391/16;
(d) a sum of ` 28,000/- in MACT No. 357018/16;
with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petitions i.e. 06.03.2012 till realization with Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioners failing which the respondent No. 3 shall be liable to pay MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 38 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. However, insurance company is entitled to recover the award amount from respondent no. 1 & 4, without filing a separate civil suit but after satisfying the award.
26. Insurer, driver and owner of the offending vehicle are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount to the petitioners/claimants and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days from today.
(i) A copy of this judgment be sent to Respondent No.3 for compliance within the time granted.
(ii) Nazir is directed to place a report on record on October 05, 2018 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(iii) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the judgment titled Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. decided by Hon`ble High Court on December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 39 of 40 Rajoo Rani Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Mst. Aviral Tomar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors. Radhika Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Shri Devanand & ors.
(iv) The original award be placed in the MACT Suit No. 356389/16 and copy thereof be placed in other matters.
(v) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on this 28th day of August, 2018 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) Judge, MACT-1 (Central), THC, Delhi/sv MACT No. 356389/16, 356390/16, 356391/16 & 357018/16 Page No. 40 of 40