Delhi District Court
Babu Lal vs . Insurance Company on 30 August, 2012
Babu Lal Vs. Insurance Company
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN PO : MACT : SOUTH DISTRICTII
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI.
In Suit No: 609/10
Unique Case ID No. 02403C0182372008
Babu Lal
S/o Sh. Shambu
R/o H. No. 516
Swaroop Chaudhary Ka Makan
Shehdulajab, New Delhi. ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Limited
BO C20, Community Centre
Janak Complex, Janakpuri
New Delhi.
(Insurer )
2. Dharminder Singh Dhawan
S/o Kuldeep Singh Dhawan
R/o I105, Som Vihar
R. K.Puram, New Delhi.
Also at : Mir Azani Furniture House
Shop No. 1
Near Indian Air Lines Colony
Vasant Vihar Kusum Pahari Road
Near Shiv Mandir, New Delhi.
(Owner)
Suit no. 609/10 1/13
Babu Lal Vs. Insurance Company
2
3. Shahjad
S/o Md. Yusuf
R/o 152 Ambedkar Basti
Sector1, R. K. Puram
New Delhi.
Also at:
Jhuggi No. A451
Dr. Ambedkar Basti
R.K. Puram
New Delhi22. (Driver)
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 11.03.2008
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 30.08.2012
Date of pronouncement : 30.08.2012
JUDGMENT:
1. This petition u/s. 166 & 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988 as amended upto date (hereinafter referred to as Act) has been filed by Sh. Babu Lal claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 28.12.07 at about 6.30 PM at M. B. Road, Opposite CISF Camp, Saket, New Delhi.
2. Briefly, the facts as stated in the petition are that on 28.12.07 at about 6.30 PM, the petitioner was going on foot. When he reached at M.B. Road, opposite CISF Camp, Saket, a Royal Enfield motor cycle Suit no. 609/10 2/13 Babu Lal Vs. Insurance Company 3 bearing no. DL9SF6881 being driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner came in a high speed and hit him. He fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to AIIMS where his MLC was prepared. A case was registered vide FIR No. 1261/07 at the Police Station Malviya Nagar. He was 38 years of age. It was stated that respondent no. 2 was the owner of the vehicle and and it was insured with respondent No. 1.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Respondent no. 2 and 3 did not contest the petition and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.04.2011.
4. Respondent no. 1 filed its written statement and stated that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. It stated that respondent no. 2 had sold the vehicle bearing no. DL9SF688 to the respondent no. 3 but failed to get the insurance policy transferred in the name of respondent no. 3 nor the respondent no. 2 & 3 apprised to the respondent no. 1 for the sale of vehicle or transfer of insurance. Respondent no. 1 however admitted that the vehicle was insured with it vide policy No. 221904/31/07/02/00004778 and it was valid for the period from 07.08.07 to 06.08.08 in the name of Dharmender Singh Dhawan.
Suit no. 609/10 3/13
Babu Lal Vs. Insurance Company 4
5. From the pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 06.04.2011:
1. Whether Babu Lal received injuries in road accident on 28.12.07 at 6.30 PM near M B Road, Opposite CISF Camp, Saket, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of Royal Enfield Motorcycle bearing no. DL9SF 6881 driven by R3 and insured by R1?
2. To what amount of compensation, petitioner is entitled to and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. The parties were thereafter called upon to substantiate their case by leading evidence.
7. The petitioner examined himself as PW1. He tendered his affidavit Ex.
PW1/A in evidence wherein he reiterated the facts as stated in the petition. He also filed the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/10.
8. The respondents did not examine any witness.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel, Ms. Kanta Choudhary for the petitioner and perused the record. My findings on the issues are as follows :
I S S U E N O . 1 Suit no. 609/10 4/13 Babu Lal Vs. Insurance Company 5
10. It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and negligent driving. To prove rash and negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal is simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of inquiry. The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
11. PW1 has deposed that on 28.12.07 at about 6.30 PM, he was going on foot. When he reached at M.B. Road, opposite CISF Camp, Saket, a Royal Enfield motor cycle bearing no. DL9SF6881 being driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner hit him. He fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to AIIMS where his MLC was prepared. A case was registered vide FIR No. 1261/07 at Police Station Malviya Nagar. He filed the certified copy of charge sheet and other documents. Perusal of it reveals that case was registered on the statement of petitioner himself. PW1 has denied that the accident had Suit no. 609/10 5/13 Babu Lal Vs. Insurance Company 6 taken place due to his negligence. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as 2009 ACJ 287 National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana has held that where a petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record showing completion of investigation, issuance of chargesheet, certified copy of the FIR, all these documents are sufficient proof to come to the conclusion that the driver was negligent.
12. It is therefore established that the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearing no. DL9SF6881 by respondent no. 3. It has also come on record that respondent No. 2 was the owner of the offending vehicle and it was insured with respondent No. 1.
13. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.
I S S U E N O . 2
14. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 10,00,000/ as compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him. In a road accident a person is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.
15. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.O. Hattangadi V/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 that: Suit no. 609/10 6/13 Babu Lal Vs. Insurance Company 7 "Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money;
whereas nonpecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit ; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED ON MEDICAL TREATMENT :
16. PW1 has stated that from the spot he was removed to Trauma Center Suit no. 609/10 7/13 Babu Lal Vs. Insurance Company 8 AIIMS where his MLC was prepared. He was thereafter shifted to Safdarjung Hospital. He filed the medical documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/6. He sustained fracture lateral malleolus, avulsion of tibiofibula ligament. In the present case, he did not file any medical bill as to his treatment . He was treated in government hospitals. Looking into his multiple injuries, I am of the view that he might have incurred some expenses on medical treatment. I award Rs.5,000/ to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
17. The petitioner after the accident was taken to AIIMS and thereafter to Safdarjung hospital for his further treatment. As per MLC, he sustained grievous injuries. The injuries had given him lot of pain and sufferings. Looking into his injuries, I award Rs. 25,000/ to the petitioner towards pain sufferings and enjoyment of life. COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT CHARGES AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES :
18. The petitioner in the present case sustained grievous injuries. The injuries were multiple. His treatment continued for long. He was advised special diet for early recovery. He had taken the help of attendant for long time. He might have incurred heavy expenses on Suit no. 609/10 8/13 Babu Lal Vs. Insurance Company 9 conveyance. Looking into all these facts and circumstances, I award Rs. 2,000/ towards conveyance, Rs.3,000/ towards special diet and Rs. 5,000/ towards attendant charges.
COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF INCOME :
19. PW1 has stated that he was labourer and earning Rs. 6,000/ per month. He did not file any document as to his qualification and income. In the instant case the injuries were such that the petitioner could not have done his work for about 3 months. The accident took place on 28.12.07. Taking a period of three months and the minimum wages for unskilled as Rs. 3516/, loss of income is calculated as 3 x 3516/ = 10,548/ which is rounded off to Rs. 10,600/ . I, therefore award Rs. 10,600/ to the petitioner towards loss of income.
20. Thus the total compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner is assessed as under :
MEDICAL EXPENSES : Rs. 5,000/
PAIN & SUFFERINGS &
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE : Rs. 25,000/
SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT &
CONVEYANCE CHARGES : Rs. 10,000/
LOSS OF INCOME
:
Rs. 10,600/
TOTAL
:
Rs.
50,600/
Suit no. 609/10 9/13
Babu Lal Vs. Insurance Company
10
L I A B I L I T Y
21. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.3, therefore primary liability to compensate the petitioner is that of respondent No.3. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2, therefore, he becomes vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. As the vehicle was insured with respondent no. 1 so respondent No.1 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioner for the above mentioned amount to the extent of liability of the insured. Record also indicates that respondent no. 2 was the registered owner and policy was also issued in the name of the respondent no. 2.
22. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no. 1.
R E L I E F
23. In view of my findings I award a sum of Rs. 50,600/ as compensation with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of its realization in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No.1.
24. Respondent no 1 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour Suit no. 609/10 10/13 Babu Lal Vs. Insurance Company 11 of the petitioner directly to the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch within 30 days from today failing which respondent no. 1 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
25. The Respondent no. 1 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
26. The Respondent no. 1 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheques of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/ petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
27. The Respondent no. 1 shall intimate to the claimant / petitioner about its having deposited the cheques in favor of the petitioner in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioner mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
28. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the parties for necessary Suit no. 609/10 11/13 Babu Lal Vs. Insurance Company 12 compliance.
29. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court
on 30th August 2012 (SANJIV JAIN)
PO : MACT02, SOUTH DISTRICT
30.08.2012
Suit no. 609/10 12/13
Babu Lal Vs. Insurance Company
13
Suit No. : 609/10
30.08.2012
Present : Counsel for the parties.
Arguments heard.
Vide separate order of even date an award for compensation of Rs.50,600/ with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization of the amount is passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondent no.1.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN ) PO : MACTII : SOUTH DISTT.
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI :
30.08.12.
Suit no. 609/10 13/13