Delhi District Court
Iind Address vs Sh.Sangeet Sachdeva on 29 January, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA:
JUDGE : MACT : CENTRAL DISTRICT : DELHI.
SUIT NO. 81/08
Sh. Raju,
S/o. Sh. Nathu Singh,
R/o. E-146, West Vinod Nagar,
Mandawali, Delhi.
IInd Address:
C-42, Raja Bazar,
Gole Market, New Delhi-1. .......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh.Sangeet Sachdeva,
S/o.Sh. Krishan Kumar Sachdeva,
R/o. H. No. 208, AGCR Enclave,
I.P. Exten.-II, Karkardoma Court,
Delhi-92. ........(Driver)
2. Smt. Rekha Sachdeva,
W/o.Sh. Krishan Kumar Sachdeva,
R/o. H. No. 208, AGCR Enclave,
I.P. Exten.-II, Karkardoma Court,
Delhi-92. ........(Owner)
2
3. The Cholamandalam Genera Insurance Co. Ltd.
Head Office: Dare House,
2nd Floor, N.S.C. Bose Road,
Chennai-600001. ........(Insurer)
.......RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 29.11.2007
Date of Decision : 29.01.2010
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s.166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present claim petition are that on 04.8.2007 the petitioner Sh. Raju was proceedings towards Mandawali from Karol Bagh via Minto Road and Connought Place on his motor cycle bearing registration no. DL-6S-V-8175. At about 02:35 pm when he had reached at Minto Road, Near Minto Bridge, Kamala Market and was turning towards DDU Marg on green signal, in the meanwhile, a Santro Car bearing registration no DL- 13-C-0565 being driven by respondent no. 1 Sh. Sangeet 3 Sachdeva at very high speed and in rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn had come from Minto Road side and had jumped the Red Signal and had hit the motorcycle of the petitioner violently with great force. As a result of this violent impact petitioner alongwith his motorcycle had fallen down on the road and had sustained serious/ grievous injuries all over his body. His motorcycle was also badly damaged in the accident.
3. Written Statement was filed by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. It is denied that accident had taken place due to negligence of respondent no.1.
4. Written statement was also filed by respondent no.3, Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein it is stated that petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and that the petition does not disclose any cause of action. However, it is admitted that offending vehicle bearing registration no.DL-13C- 4 0565 was insured with respondent no.3 vide policy no.MPC- 00048158-000-00 and the insurance policy was valid from 1.7.2007 to 30.6.2008.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were settled as under:-
(i). Whether the petitioner suffered grievous injuries on the 04.8.07 at about 2:35 pm at Minto Road near Minto Bridge, Kamala Market, Delhi due to rash & negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-13C-0565 by Respondent no.1?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
6. Petitioner has examined six witnesses in support of his claim.5
7. PW-1 Sh. Raju, who is the petitioner himself tendered his evidence and examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and stated therein that on 04.8.2007 he was proceedings towards Mandawali from Karol Bagh via Minto Road and Connought Place on his motor cycle bearing registration no. DL-6S-V-8175. At about 02:35 pm when he had reached at Minto Road, Near Minto Bridge, Kamala Market and was turning towards DDU Marg on green signal, in the meanwhile, a Santro Car bearing registration no DL-
13-C-0565 being driven by respondent no. 1 Sh. Sangeet Sachdeva at very high speed and in rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn had come from Minto Road side and had jumped the Red Signal and had hit his motorcycle violently with great force. As a result of this violent impact he alongwith his motorcycle had fallen down on the road and had sustained serious/ grievous injuries all over his body. He stated that the motorcycle was also badly damaged in the accident. Someone from the crowd which had gathered at the spot had informed the police. The driver 6 of the offending vehicle had taken him in the offending vehicle, at the instance of the crowd, to RML Hospital. Police had recorded his statement at RML hospital. He stated that he has suffered compound grade III fracture (BB) left leg, crush injury left leg, fracture ends exposed with underlying soft tissues, muscles, tendons, bones exposed, sever pain and bleeding from left leg and scalp, shortening of left leg, loss of transmitted movements from distal and proximal fragments treated with external fixation of left leg with external tubular fixation with flap transfer from posterior aspect of left leg, profusely bleeding, abrasions and blunt injuries all over the body. He stated that skin grafting was applied on left leg.
He further stated that he had remained admitted in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital for about 16 days from 04.8.2007 to 20.8.2007. He stated that during the period of his admission in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital external fixation of left leg with external tubular fixation with flap transfer from posterior aspect of left leg was done and debridement of wound was also done.
He also stated that on 21.8.2007 he was admitted in Ram 7 Lal Kundan Lal Orthopedic Hospital and was discharged on 01.9.2007 where debridement and stitching of wound and split skin grafting over his left leg was done.
He further stated that on 24.9.2007 he was again admitted in Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopedic Hospital and was discharged on 28.9.2007 where cross leg flap coverage surgery was done and external fixator was also applied on his right leg. Thereafter, he had visited the OPD of Dr. Sanjay Goel at Ram Lal Kundal Lal Orthopedic Hospital on various dates for his regular check up.
He further stated that on 16.10.2007 he was again admitted in Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopedic Hospital and was discharged on the same day after flap detachment and pedicle surgery was done. Thereafter, he had visited the OPD of Dr. Sanjay Goel at Ram Lal Kundal Lal Orthopedic Hospital on various dates for his regular check up. His left leg was changed on 21.12.2007.
He also stated that on 09.4.2008 he was again admitted in LNJPN hospital and was discharged on 26.5.2008 after illizarov ring fixator was applied on his left lower leg as the fracture of his left leg 8 was not united. Thereafter, he had attended the OPD of LNJPN Hospital of various dates.
He stated that on 24.9.2008 the illizarov ring fixator from his left leg was removed and he was advised to do regular exercises. Now he cannot sit on floor with cross legs. He cannot bend his left knee and he cannot walk and run properly. He had visited the various hospitals for about 25-30 times besides the abovementioned five admissions and he is still under active treatment. He also stated that he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident and has suffered permanent disability.
He proved the original discharge slips, OPD Cards, X-ray reports, medical bills and receipts Ex.PW1/1 to. Ex.PW1/23. He stated that he has spent more than Rs.1,25,000/- on his medical treatment, Rs.15,000/- on conveyance, Rs.15,000/- on special diet and Rs.18,000/- on attendant charges.
He stated that at the time of accident he was working as driver with one Sh. Vijay Kumar at Karol Bagh and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month as salary including over time. Due to the 9 injuries sustained in the accident he could not work as he was unable to drive any vehicle. He stated that he has studied up to 8th class and proved the photocopy of his school leaving certificate Ex.PW1/24. He also stated that he was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive motorcycle and proved the photocopy of the same Ex.PW1/25.
On being cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 Sh. Sumit Gupta, he stated that he has no documentary proof regarding his occupation or earnings. He stated that he has no document to show his permanent disability.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 Sh. V. K. Puri, he stated that he has not obtained permanent disability certificate, however, he has applied for the same from LNJPN Hospital.
8. PW-2 Shri B.S. Bhatti, Medical Record Clerk from LNJP Hospital proved the original medical treatment record of patient who was admitted in LNJP Hospital on 09.4.2008 and was 10 discharged o 26.5.2008 running into 10 sheets Ex.PW2/A.
9. PW-3 Sh. Surinder Singh, Medical Record Clerk, RML Hospital, proved the entire treatment record of patient who was admitted in RML Hospital on 04.8.2007 and was discharged on 20.8.2007 running into 54 sheets Ex.PW3/A.
10. PW-4 Sh. Vinod Kumar, Medical Record Clerk, Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopedics Hospital, proved the entire medical treatment record including the payment record of medical expenditure incurred by the patient who was admitted in their Hospital on 21.8.2007 and was discharged on 01.9.2007 running into 22 sheets Ex.PW4/A. The original medical treatment record regarding the patient Raju being admitted in the hospital on 24.9.2007 and being discharged on 28.9.2007 running into 16 sheets Ex.PW4/B. Original medical treatment record regarding the patient Raju being admitted in the hospital on 16.10.2007 and discharged 11 on the same day i.e. 16.10.2007 running into 9 sheets Ex.PW4/C. He stated that documents Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/12, Ex.PW1/13 to Ex.PW1/23 and Ex.PW1/97 to Ex.PW1/121 have been issued from their hospital.
11. PW-5 HC Rameshwar, P.S. Kamla Market proved the FIR pertaining to the accident Ex.PW5/A. He stated that respondent no. 1 Sh. Sangeet was arrested in this case and challan has been filed before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
12. PW-6 Dr. Sanjay Goel, Consultant Orthopedics Surgeon, Ram Lal Kundal Lal Orthopedics Hospital, stated that he has treated the petitioner Raju and stated that documents Ex.PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/7 were prepared by him. The petitioner had suffered from two weeks old compound fracture both bones of left leg with infected wound.
Initially the patient Raju was treated at RML Hospital from 04.8.2007 to 21.8.2007 where external fixation of left leg bones with 12 debridement and flap coverage was done. It was severely infected.
During the admission of the patient in their hospital on 21.8.2007 to 01.9.2007 wound debridement and skin grafting was conducted. He was re-admitted in their hospital on 24.9.2007 to 28.9.2007 and flap coverage (which means two legs are joined together and muscle mass from one leg is transferred to injured leg, they are joined together for three weeks and then separation of two legs alongwith skin grafting is done) and external fixator application was done.
The patient was again admitted in the hospital on 06.10.2007 and was discharged on the same date after surgery and flap detachment was conducted. Thereafter, the patient had followed up the treatment in the hospital OPD till 29.1.2008. Thereafter, patient had taken treatment from the LNJP hospital.
13. Thereafter, petitioner's evidence was closed.
14. Certified copies of the criminal case record were proved as 13 Ex.P-X.
15. Respondents did not lead any evidence to controvert the claim of the petitioner. Hence, respondents evidence was closed.
16. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld.Counsel for petitioner as well as for the respondents. After hearing arguments and having gone through the record, I record my findings on issues settled as follows:
17.ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the petitioner suffered grievous injuries on the 04.8.07 at about 2:35 pm at Minto Road near Minto Bridge, Kamala Market, Delhi due to rash & negligent driving of vehicle No. DL- 13C-0565 by Respondent no.1?
The petitioner has filed on record copy of FIR as well as certified copies of the challan. Police investigation has concluded that the accident in this case has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1 who is driver of the offending 14 vehicle bearing registration no.DL-13C-0565 and who is accused in the criminal case filed by the police.
The petitioner has also stated on oath that the accident in this case has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1 and has been discussed above in the testimony of PW-1 i.e. injured.
It is therefore prima facie clear that the accident in the case had taken place with the offending vehicle driven by respondent no.1 due to his rash and negligent driving causing serious injuries tot he petitioner.
Hence, issue no.1 is decided against the respondents.
18.ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
Since, issue no.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioner that he had suffered injuries with the offending vehicle, the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicle 15 Act.
19.MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT.
The petitioner has remained under medical treatment and several surgeries were conducted upon him, as I have already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. He has also remained an OPD patient. He has filed on record the bills towards medical expenditure in the sum of Rs.1,02,062/- including the cost of the implant which he has bought in the sum of Rs.2,450/-. Therefore, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.1,02,062/- to the petitioner Sh. Raju towards cost of medicines and medical treatment.
20.LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE.
The petitioner has stated that due to the injuries sustained by him in the present accident he is not able to sit on floor with cross legs. He cannot bend his left knee and he cannot walk and run properly. He also stated that he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident and has suffered permanent disability. Therefore, I 16 am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of enjoyment and amenities of life.
21.LOSS OF WAGES.
As per medical treatment record, the petitioner had sustained compound grade III fracture (BB) left leg, crush injury left leg, fracture ends exposed with underlying soft tissues, muscles, tendons, bones exposed, sever pain and bleeding from left leg and scalp, shortening of left leg, loss of transmitted movements from distal and proximal fragments treated with external fixation of left leg with external tubular fixation with flap transfer from posterior aspect of left leg, profusely bleeding, abrasions and blunt injuries all over the body. He stated that skin grafting was applied on left leg. He had remained under medical treatment w.e.f. 04.8.2007 to 26.5.2008. Therefore, I grant loss of wages for about 9 months.
The petitioner has stated that at the time of accident he was working as driver with one Sh. Vijay Kumar at Karol Bagh and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month as salary including over time. No 17 documentary proof regarding his income has been filed. However, no contrary evidence has been brought on record that the petitioner was not working as a driver. Therefore, I am inclined to grant him minimum wages of a skilled labourer.
Minimum wages of a skilled labourer as on the date of accident i.e. 04.8.2007 were Rs.3,940.00/-
Therefore, the loss of income for 9 months will be Rs.3,940.00/- x 9 which comes to Rs.35,460/-. Thus, I award a sum of Rs.35,460/- to petitioner on account of loss of income.
22.PAIN AND SUFFERING.
The petitioner has undergone as many as 4-5 number of surgeries and had remained admitted in the hospital as many as 5- 6 times. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has undergone the trauma of long and repeated admission in the hospital, medical treatment and surgeries stretched to more than a year. No amount of money can compensate the petitioner to pain and suffering that 18 he had suffered in the accident. I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the petitioner towards pain and suffering.
23.CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET.
Considering the unusually large number of surgeries conducted and the medical treatment undergone by gun repeatedly, I award a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for conveyance and a sum of Rs.10,000/- for special diet to the petitioner.
24. In view of my finding on issue no.1 and 2, the petitioner Suresh Chand is awarded following compensation:-
Medicines and medical treatment Rs.1,02,062/-
Loss of amenities of life Rs.20,000/-
Loss of Wages Rs.35,460/-
Pain and Suffering Rs.70,000/-
Conveyance & Special Diet Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.2,47,522/-
19
25. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,47,522/- (round figure Rs.2,48,000/-). Petitioner is also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 29.11.2007 till its realization.
Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.70,000/- be given in cash to petitioner and remaining amount be deposited in the form of FDR with any nationalized bank for the period of 5 years without the facility of advance/ loan or withdrawal. However, petitioner will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
26. Respondent No.1 being driver, respondent no. 2 being owner and respondent no.3 being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to make payment of compensation to the petitioner.
27. Respondent No.3 is directed to place on record the cheque of compensation within 30 days. Copy of the order be given dasti to retainer of insurance company for compliance. File be consigned to 20 Record Room.
Announced in open court (SWARANA K.SHARMA) on 29/01/2010. JUDGE: MACT: CENTRAL DISTT. : DELHI