Delhi District Court
Shri Ramesh Rai vs Shri Pradeep Kumar on 18 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJLI GOEL, PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL2, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No.D18/15
Date of Institution: 12.01.2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Ramesh Rai
S/o Shri Moolchand Rai
R/o H.No.1160, Gali No. 24A
Swatantra Nagar, Narela
Delhi 110040. .......Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Pradeep Kumar
S/o Shri Harish Chand
R/o VPOKiyawan Mohammedpur
Sahijani Kunda
Distt. Pratap Garh, U.P.
2. Nanhe Lal
S/o Shri Ram Khiladi
R/o C39, Gali No.3, Om Nagar
Badarpur
New Delhi 110044.
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
D.O. : Laxmi Nagar
Delhi - 110092
Also at:
4th Floor, Chintamani Avenue
Off Western Express Highway
Suit No. D18/15
Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 23
Near Virwani Industrial Estate
Goregaon (East)
Mumbai 400063. ....Respondents
Final Arguments heard : 21.04.2015 Award reserved for : 18.05.2015 Date of Award : 18.05.2015 AWARD
1. Vide this judgmentcumaward, I proceed to decide the DAR which is treated as a petition 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 09.03.2014 at about 5:00 A.M, the petitioner was sitting in the vehicle No.DL1LT1542 which was going to Tughlak Road, New Delhi. The said vehicle was loaded with crockery articles. When the said vehicle reached at Ring Road, Nanakpura in front of Gurudwara, New Delhi, all of a sudden a truck bearing No.HR55A1887 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner in a very high speed without following traffic rules and regulations which was driven by the driver/respondent No.1 and suddenly the offending vehicle forcefully hit the vehicle in which the petitioner was sitting. Due to the forceful impact the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body and also received a fracture in ankle and foot. The petitioner Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 23 along with other injured was taken to JPN Trauma Centre, AIIMS by the police officials where he was treated by the doctors and his MLC was prepared by the doctors. It is stated that the petitioner received fracture in left hand and left leg, ankle and foot etc. Some other person had called 100 number and police came at the spot after some time and the petitioner was taken to the hospital by the police. It is submitted that the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the police at the hospital. It is stated that in respect of the accident FIR No. 109/14 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered at PS South Campus.
3. It is averred that the petitioner was firstly admitted in JPN Trauma Centre AIIMS on 09.03.2014 and also received multiple grievous injuries and fracture in left leg, ankle and foot and abrasions all over the body and he was discharged on the same day, however the treatment was going on for about 6 months in private hospital. It is stated that at the time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 40 years and was working as Dish washer/ plate cleaner in a Crockery Shop/ Company i.e. D.I.C. at Alipur, New Delhi and was earning Rs. 800/ on daily wages. It is contended that due to the accident, the petitioner had lost his earnings of about 6 months as during the treatment, he could not do his work for about 6 months. It is averred that the petitioner had spent Rs. 1,00,000/ on medical treatment and Rs.40,000/ on special diet and Rs. 30,000/ on conveyance and loss of income of Rs.72,000/ for three months, loss of disfigurement of Rs.50,000/ and future prospects of Rs.1,00,000/ etc. It is contended that due to the accident, he had suffered great mental pain and Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 23 agony, loss of leave, loss of income, loss of marriage prospects, loss of disfigurement, loss of work of 3 months, loss of financial problem, loss of social activity, loss of future prospects etc. It is alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver/respondent No.1 of the offending vehicle No.HR55A1887 Truck and an innocent person became the victim of the same.
4. Reply to the DAR was filed on behalf of the driver/ respondent No.1 taking the preliminary objections that the DAR is not maintainable against the respondent No.1 as the police officials had falsely roped the respondent No.1. It is averred that no cause of action ever arose against the respondent No.1 and no accident had been caused by the respondent No.1/ alleged driver. Separate reply was filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 taking the same pleas as taken in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1. It is averred that no accident had been caused by the alleged offending vehicle and the vehicle of the respondent No.2/ owner never met with the alleged accident.
5. Reply to the DAR on behalf of the respondent No.3 was filed stating that as per the contents of the DAR filed by the IO, an FIR No.109/14 dated 09.03.2014 had been registered with PS South Campus and injured Shri Ramesh received grievous injuries in nature and Shri Vikram sustained simple injuries as per MLC and the accident was caused due to the vehicle bearing No.HR55A1887. It is averred that the IO has not filed the present DAR Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 23 properly and proper investigation was not conducted with regard to the documents. It is contended that even if it is held that both the injured persons/ petitioners sustained injuries, then they must have sustained the same because of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.DL1LT1542 and not because of any wrongful act or negligence on the part of the driver of the truck No.HR55A1887 as alleged. The contents of the FIR were denied. The insurance of the interest of the owner of vehicle No.HR55A1887 with the respondent No.3 was admitted subject to terms and conditions, exclusions and exceptions of the commercial vehicle policy bearing No.1316432349001025 issued for the period from 11.11.2013 to 10.11.2014.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 03.02.2015:
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 09.03.2014 at about 05:00 A.M at opposite Nanakpura Gurudwara, New Delhi, caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR55A1887 driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 23
7. The petitioner Shri Ramesh Rai appeared in the witness box as PW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A. DAR is Ex.PW1/1 (colly), copy of the rent agreement is Ex.PW1/2 and copy of election identity card is Ex.PW1/3. PE was closed on 24.3.2015. It was stated by the learned counsel for the insurance company that no RE was to be led and RE was closed on 7.4.2015.
8. I have heard the petitioner as well as the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 and perused the record.
9. My findings on the specific issues are as under:
Issue No. 1
10. As the case is U/s 166 M.V Act it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that he sustained injuries in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle it has been held in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pushpa Rana & Another 2009 Accident Claims Journal 287 as follows:
"The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents/claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 23 Insurance Company Ltd. V. Meena Variyal (supra). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of offending vehicle (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code against the driver;
(iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of deceased.
These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant 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.
Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 23
11. The case of the petitioner is that on 09.03.2014 at about 5:00 A.M, the petitioner was sitting in the vehicle No.DL1LT1542 which was going to Tughlak Road, New Delhi. The said vehicle was loaded with crockery articles. When the said vehicle reached at Ring Road, Nanakpura in front of Gurudwara, New Delhi, all of a sudden a truck bearing No.HR55A1887 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner in a very high speed without following traffic rules and regulations which was driven by the driver/respondent No.1 and suddenly the offending vehicle forcefully hit the vehicle in which the petitioner was sitting. Due to the forceful impact the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body and also received a fracture in ankle and foot. The petitioner along with other injured was taken to JPN Trauma Centre, AIIMS by the police officials where he was treated by the doctors and his MLC was prepared by the doctors. Some other person had called 100 number and police came at the spot after some time and the petitioner was taken to the hospital by the police. It was submitted that the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the police at the hospital. It was stated that in respect of the accident FIR No.109/14 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered at PS South Campus. The petitioner had also deposed to that effect.
12. The IO had filed Detailed Accident Report containing the criminal record consisting of copy of charge sheet; copy of tehrir, copy of FIR; copy of site plan; copy of MLC, copy of DD, copy of arrest memo and personal search Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 23 memo, copy of seizure memos; copy of mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle and of the truck No.DL1LT1542, copy of the notices under Section 133 MV Act, copy of verification report of the RC of the offending vehicle, copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle and its verification report and verification report of DL of the respondent No.1, copy of permit of the offending vehicle, copy of verification report of the fitness certificate of the offending vehicle, copy of order on application for release of the offending vehicle on superdari along with a copy of the superdarinama and also the superdarinama in respect of the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling. As per the FIR No.109/14 under sections 279/337 IPC, PS South Campus the case was registered on the basis of complaint of Bhagwan Singh who was driving the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling 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 279/337/338 IPC.
13. The respondent No.1 had filed the reply averring that the police officials had falsely roped the respondent No.1. It was averred that no accident had been caused by the respondent No.1/ alleged driver. Separate reply was filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 taking the same pleas as taken in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1. It was averred that no accident had been caused by the alleged offending vehicle and the vehicle of the respondent No.2/ owner never met with the alleged accident. However the respondents No.1 and 2 did not crossexamine PW1. During cross Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 23 examination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 stated that the vehicle No.DL1LT1542 was being driven by Shri Bhagwan Singh at the time of the accident. He denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of vehicle No.DL1LT1542. He denied the suggestion that the driver of the vehicle No.DL1LT1542 was not having any DL at the time of the accident to drive the said vehicle. He denied the suggestion that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR55A1887. Thus PW1 stated that the vehicle No.DL1LT1542 was being driven by Shri Bhagwan Singh at the time of the accident and even the FIR was registered on the complaint of Bhagwan Singh. Apart from that only suggestions were put to PW1 which he denied. The mechanical inspection report of the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling shows that the rear side body was dented and scratched, front bumper was dented and scratched, front wind screen was broken and front side body was dented and scratched. It is true that the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle does not show any damage but it is pertinent that the mechanical inspection was carried out after more than 4 months of the accident. At the same time it is seen that the FIR was lodged soon after the accident and the number of the offending vehicle was mentioned in the same as also the name of the respondent No.1. Further the respondents No.1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle have not adduced any evidence to dispute the version put forth by the petitioner or in the criminal record. The criminal record has been placed on record which shows that the Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 23 respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 279/337/338 IPC. In Basant Kaur and others v. Chattar Pal Singh and others 2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB) it was observed that registration of criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle was enough to record a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident. The respondents have also not led any evidence to prove any other version of the accident. There is no evidence from the respondents to disprove the particulars of the accident or the involvement of vehicle No.HR55A1887. 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.
14. It was stated that due to the forceful impact the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body and also received fracture in ankle and foot. The petitioner along with other injured was taken to JPN Trauma Centre, AIIMS by the police officials where he was treated by the doctors and his MLC was prepared by the doctors. Some other person had called 100 number and police came at the spot after some time and the petitioner was taken to the hospital by the police. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner. Thus it stands established that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the alleged accident. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 23 Issue No.2
15. Since issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioner he would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Act. The law is well settled that the compensation has to be awarded in personal injury cases under the following heads: (1) for loss of earnings during the period of treatment (2) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (3) expenses suffered by him on his treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food etc. In addition, he is further entitled to non pecuniary damages/general damages which include (1) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries and (2) loss of expectation of life.
MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT
16. The case of the petitioner is that due to the forceful impact of the accident on 9.3.2014 the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body and also received fracture in ankle and foot. The petitioner along with other injured was taken to JPN Trauma Centre, AIIMS by the police officials where he was treated by the doctors and his MLC was prepared by the doctors. It was stated that the petitioner received fracture in left hand and left leg, ankle and foot etc. Some other person had called 100 number and police came at the spot after some time and the Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 23 petitioner was taken to the hospital by the police. It was averred that the petitioner was firstly admitted in JPN Trauma Centre AIIMS on 09.03.2014 and he received multiple grievous injuries and also received fracture in left leg, ankle and foot and abrasions all over the body etc. and he was discharged the same day, however the treatment was going on for about 6 months in a private hospital. It was contended that the petitioner had spent Rs.1,00,000/ on the medical treatment and Rs.40,000/ on special diet and Rs.30,000/ on conveyance and loss of income was Rs.72,000/ of three months, loss for disfigurement was Rs.50,000/ and loss of future prospects was of Rs. 1,00,000/ etc. It was averred that due to the accident, the petitioner had suffered great mental pain and agony, loss of leave, loss of income, loss of marriage prospects, loss of disfigurement, loss of work of 3 months, loss of financial problem, loss of social activity, loss of future prospects etc. The petitioner had also deposed to that effect. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner and as per the same the nature of injuries was opined to be grievous. The discharge summary was also placed on record which shows that the petitioner had sustained fracture of base of 3rd and 4th MT left side. Thus the injuries were grievous in nature. There is however nothing to show that the petitioner underwent treatment for 6 months in a private hospital. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability due to the accident. Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 23
17. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 stated that he was discharged on the same day from the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he had not suffered any grievous injuries due to the said accident. He admitted that he had not filed any discharge summary, xray report to show the nature of injury as grievous. He denied the suggestion that he had filed false and procured documents. He admitted that he had not filed any document to show the expenses of his treatment, special diet, conveyance, loss of income, loss of disfigurement, loss of future prospect etc. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent any expenses on his treatment, special diet, conveyance, loss of income, loss of disfigurement, loss of future prospect etc. He denied the suggestion that he was not entitled for any claim. Thus PW1 stated that he was discharged on the same day from the hospital and the discharge summary also shows the same. He admitted that he had not filed any discharge summary, xray report to show the nature of injury as grievous though subsequently the discharge summary was placed on record which shows that the petitioner had sustained fracture. He admitted that he had not filed any document to show the expenses of his treatment, special diet, conveyance, loss of income, loss of disfigurement, loss of future prospect etc. As such there is no medical bill on record or any other document to show that the petitioner had undergone treatment and spent money on the same. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner had sustained injuries and underwent treatment for the same. The petitioner had stated that he had spent Rs.1,00,000/ on the medical treatment but he has not filed any Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 23 bill to show the expenses incurred. Looking to the nature of the injuries the petitioner would have incurred some expenses on the treatment. Accordingly an amount of Rs.5,000/ (Rs.Five Thousand only) is awarded towards medical treatment and expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
18. It has been held in Divisional Controller, K. S. R. T. C v Mahadeva Shetty and another AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4172 as under:
13."The damages for vehicular accidents are in the nature of compensation in money for loss of any kind caused to any person. In case of personal injury the position is different from loss of property. In the later case there is possibility of repair or restoration. But in the case of personal injury, the possibility of repair or restoration is practically nonexistent. In Parry V. Cleaver (1969 1 All. E. R. 555) Lord Morris stated as follows:
"To compensate in money for pain and for the physical consequences is invariably difficult, but...... no other process can be devised than that of making monetary assessment."
The case of the petitioner is that due to the forceful impact of the accident on 9.3.2014 he fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body and also received fracture in ankle and foot. The petitioner along with other injured was taken to JPN Trauma Centre, AIIMS by the police officials where he was treated by the doctors and his MLC was prepared by Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 23 the doctors. It was stated that the petitioner received fracture in left hand and left leg, ankle and foot etc. Some other person had called 100 number and police came at the spot after some time and the petitioner was taken to the hospital by the police. It was averred that the petitioner was firstly admitted in JPN Trauma Centre AIIMS on 09.03.2014 and he received multiple grievous injuries and also received fracture in left leg, ankle and foot and abrasions all over the body etc. and he was discharged the same day, however the treatment was going on for about 6 months in a private hospital. It was averred that due to the accident, the petitioner had suffered great mental pain and agony, loss of leave, loss of income, loss of marriage prospects, loss of disfigurement, loss of work of 3 months, loss of financial problem, loss of social activity, loss of future prospects etc. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner and as per the same the nature of injuries was opined to be grievous. The discharge summary was also placed on record which shows that the petitioner had sustained fracture of base of 3rd and 4th MT left side. Thus the injuries were grievous in nature. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability due to the accident. Looking at the nature of injuries and extent of treatment and that the accident pertains to the year 2014, the petitioner is awarded Rs.20,000/ (Rs.Twenty Thousand only) for pain and suffering.
Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 23
19. The petitioner was about 40 years old at the time of the accident and PW1 had deposed to that effect. Copy of the slip of Aadhar card of the petitioner is Ex.PW1/3 as per which the age of the petitioner was 40 years as on 16.3.2015 and the MLC shows his age to be 38 years. Notice can be taken of the fact that on account of the injuries sustained by him the petitioner may not have been able to perform his day to day duties towards his family and on account of the injuries suffered by him the petitioner may not have been able to enjoy the amenities of life. In the circumstances the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/ (Rs.Ten Thousand only) for loss of amenities of life. The petitioner cannot however be held to be entitled to any amount towards loss of expectation of life or towards disfiguration.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
20. The petitioner in para 8 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had stated that he had spent Rs.30,000/ on conveyance. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3/ insurance company PW1 admitted that he had not filed any document to show the expenses of his treatment, special diet, conveyance, loss of income, loss of disfigurement, loss of future prospect etc. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent any expenses on his treatment, special diet, conveyance, loss of income, loss of disfigurement, loss of future prospect etc. Although the petitioner has not filed any document on record in order to prove the expenditure on conveyance however, notice can Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 17 of 23 be taken of the fact that after the accident the petitioner was taken to AIIMS and that after discharge from hospital he might have hired the services of private conveyance as he would not have been able to drive of his own or to use public conveyance. In the circumstances a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs.Five Thousand only) would be just and proper towards conveyance charges.
21. The petitioner in para 8 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had stated that he had spent Rs.40,000/ on special diet. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3/ insurance company PW1 admitted that he had not filed any document to show the expenses of his treatment, special diet, conveyance, loss of income, loss of disfigurement, loss of future prospect etc. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent any expenses on his treatment, special diet, conveyance, loss of income, loss of disfigurement, loss of future prospect etc. Although the petitioner has not proved that he was advised special diet but looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner notice can be taken of the fact that the petitioner might have taken diet rich in protein, vitamins and minerals for speedier recovery. In the circumstances the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs.Five Thousand only) for special diet.
22. Although the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that he incurred any expenses towards attendant charges, however looking to the nature of injuries the petitioner would have incurred some expenditure on Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 18 of 23 attendant charges and a sum of Rs.9,000/ is awarded towards attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
23. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 40 years and was working as Dish washer/ plate cleaner in a Crockery Shop/ Company i.e. D.I.C. at Alipur, New Delhi and was earning Rs. 800/ on daily wages. It was contended that due to the accident, the petitioner had lost his earnings of about 6 months as during the treatment, he could not do his work for about 6 months. It was averred that the petitioner had suffered loss of income of Rs.72,000/ for three months, and future prospects of Rs. 1,00,000/ etc. It was contended that due to the accident, he had suffered loss of leave, loss of income, loss of work of 3 months, loss of financial problem, loss of future prospects etc. However the petitioner has not placed on record any document to show what he was doing or how much amount he was earning. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 admitted that he had not filed any document to show his income and employment at the time of the accident. He denied the suggestion that he was not working as Dish Washer/plate cleaner in a crockery shop/company i.e. DIC at Alipur, New Delhi or that he was not earning Rs. 800/ on daily wages. He admitted that he had not filed any document to show the loss of earning of about 6 months as mentioned in para 7 of his affidavit. Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 19 of 23 Thus PW1 admitted that he had not filed any document to show his income and employment at the time of the accident and as such there is nothing to show how much amount the petitioner was earning or what he was doing at the time of the accident.
24. The petitioner had stated that he could not do his work for 6 months and lost his earnings for about 6 months though he had claimed amount for loss of earnings for 3 months. However the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he remained on bed rest for any particular period and there is nothing to show that he was advised bed rest for any particular period or that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident he was unable to work or to show the period for which he was not able to work. During cross examination PW1 admitted that he had not filed any document to show the loss of earning of about 6 months as mentioned in para 7 of his affidavit. In the absence of any advice of doctor notice can be taken of the fact that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident the petitioner may not have been able to perform his avocation for some period. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 25,000/ consolidated on account of loss of income.
25. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner had suffered any disability on account of the injuries. The petitioner has not proved that he acquired any disability on account of the accident or that he is likely to suffer Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 20 of 23 future loss of income on account of the injuries sustained in the accident and that the injuries would reduce his efficiency to work and thereby he would suffer loss of future income. Accordingly the petitioner cannot be held entitled to any amount on account of loss of future prospects.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
Medicines and Medical treatment Rs.5,000/ Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/ Loss of Amenities of life Rs.10,000/ Conveyance Rs.5,000/ Special Diet Rs.5,000/ Attendant charges Rs.9,000/ Loss of Income Rs.25,000/ TOTAL Rs.79,000/ Thus the total compensation would be Rs.79,000/. RELIEF
26. The petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.79,000/ (Rs.Seventy Nine Thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization including, interim award, if any already passed against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the award amount directly in the court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft within 30 days of the passing of the award failing which Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 21 of 23 it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay. APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
27. The respondent No.1 is the driver, the respondent No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Thus the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are held jointly and severally liable. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 i.e. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. being the insurance company in its reply had admitted that interest of the owner of vehicle No.HR55A1887 was insured with the respondent No.3 subject to terms and conditions, exclusions and exceptions of the commercial vehicle policy bearing No. 1316432349001025 issued for the period from 11.11.2013 to 10.11.2014. There is no evidence on behalf of the respondent No.3 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondents No.1 and 2 and in fact the duly verified documents regarding the offending vehicle were placed on record by the IO with the DAR. Hence, the respondent No.3 being the insurance company in respect of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 3 being the insurer is directed to deposit the award amount in the court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft within 30 days of the passing of the award with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per Suit No. D18/15 Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 22 of 23 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 petitioner shall file his complete address as well as address of his counsel for sending the notice of deposit of the award amount. The insurer shall deposit the award amount along with interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant with a copy to his counsel and the compliance report shall be filed in the court along with proof of deposit of award amount, the notice of deposit and the calculation of interest on 17.8.2015.
An attested copy of the award be given to the parties (free of cost). File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
on this 18th day of May, 2015 (GEETANJLI GOEL)
PO: MACT2
New Delhi
Suit No. D18/15
Ramesh Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23