Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sh Suresh Parsad vs Sh Surender Kumar on 30 November, 2010

     IN THE COURT OF MS. REENA SINGH NAG, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
         JUDGE-02 NORTH-EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

MACT No.62/09
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0311822009

Sh Suresh Parsad
s/o Chulai Parsad
r/o E-446/487, New Seema Puri
Delhi.                                                        ......Petitioner
                            VERSUS
1. Sh Surender Kumar
   s/o Sh Layak Ram
   r/o 361 A-Block, Ist Pushta
   Sonia Vihar
   Delhi.                                                     .....Driver
2. Rohtash
   r/o H No.329, Kondli Village
   Delhi.                                                     .....Owner

Date of institution               :      27.10.2009
Arguments heard on                :      27.11.2010
Date of decision                  :      30.11.2010
                                                        FIR No.299/09
                                                        P.S.: Seema Puri
                                  AWARD

1.      Present claim petition has      been filed by claimant to            claim
compensation of Rs.5 lacs on account of the injuries sustained by him in an
accident which took place on 27.08.09 at about 21.15 hours when he was
going to Dilsahd Garden from his house and when he reached in front of R-
Pocket Chowk near Pummy Sweets, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, when the
offending vehicle i.e maruti car bearing no.DL 2C AC 7409 came being driven
by its driver from Dilshad Garden side at a high speed in a rash and negligent
manner and hit the petitioner thereby, causing injuries. He was removed to
GTB Hospital where he was treated. It is claimed that he spent appox.
Rs.50,000/- on his treatment which is still on going.
2.      In response to the notice of petition to respondent no.1, driver and

respondent no.2, owner, in their joint WS admitted the factum of respondent no.1 being the driver and respondent no.2 being owner of the vehicle. However, involvement of the vehicle in the accident and rashness and negligence was denied and rashness and negligence was attributed on the part of the petitioner herself.

3. There was no insurance of the offending vehicle.

4. From the pleadings on record, following issues were framed on 18.09.2010:-

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in an accident which took place on 27.08.09 at 21.15 hours at R-Pocket Chowk near Pummy Sweets, Dilshad Garden, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no.DL-2C-AC-7509 by respondent no.1 vehicle owned by respondent no.2?OPP

2. If so, how much compensation petitioner is entitled to and from whom?OPP

3. Relief.

5. In support of his case, petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A wherein he supported the averments as made in the petition. Respondent examined the driver Surender as R1W1 who inter-alia testified that on the fateful day i.e on 27.08.09 at 9.15 p.m, he was proceeding towards his house from Seema Puri and when he reached at T point near H Pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, he took a turn towards Pummy Sweet Corner at a very moderate speed at which time a rickshaw puller came from wrong side at a fast speed and took a sharp turn due to his negligence, his rickshaw was struck against his vehicle (car). So, he attributed rashness and negligence to the rickshaw puller and also claimed that rickshaw puller was under the influence of liquor.

6. Counsel for respondent has claimed that no amount has been claimed in the affidavit nor it has been mentioned that in criminal case, the offence was compounded and compensation amount was received by the injured.

Counsel for petitioner admitted that in the criminal case in all for two cases, Rs.12,000/- was received as compensation whereas Rs.5,000/- was received by Suresh, Rs.7,000/- was received by the other petitioner in petition no.61/09 namely Smt Usha.

7. I have heard the arguments and gone through the case file and my issue-wise findings are as under:-

ISSUE NO.1:-

8. This is the petition U/s 166 of M.V. Act as such petitioner is required to establish the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The accident is not denied by the respondent. Respondent no.1 being driver and respondent no.2 being owner is also not denied. The negligence has been attributed to the petitioner in para no.27 of the WS meaning thereby, that involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident is admitted. Moreover, the copy of FIR placed on record, mechanical inspection of the vehicle, the MLCs of the injured persons and testimony of R1W1 also confirms the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. The name of the driver as Surender is mentioned in the FIR and rashness and negligence has been attributed to him.

9. Every motorist is expected to drive the motor in a controlled manner so as to avoid any collision with any vehicle or object coming in his way. Respondent has examined himself in his defence and stated that he was driving the vehicle at a moderate speed when the rickshaw puller came from wrong side at a very fast speed and took a sharp turn as a result, the accident took place. Since in the criminal case, the offence was compounded u/s 337/338 IPC so, it is quite obvious that u/s 279 IPC accused must have pleaded guilty as such, he cannot blow hot and cold and at this juncture states that he was not rash or negligent in his driving when he has drawn the benefit of compounding in the criminal case and wriggled out from the criminal consequences by paying the compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the rickshaw puller and Rs.7,000/- to the other injured Usha. As such, rashness and negligence is established in this case which caused consequent injuries to the victim and hence, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no.1.

ISSUE NO.2:-

10. Having heard the arguments and after perusal of the case file, in my considered view, petitioner is entitled to a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- having regard to Rs.5,000/- already received by the injured in criminal case which compensation amount would be on account of the injury sustained, special diet, pain and sufferings and loss of income. Since the nature of injury is admittedly simple and no proof has been brought with regard to the expenses incurred on repair of the rickshaw nor any photographs have been produced on record to the extent of damages sustained to the rickshaw, an award is passed accordingly.

RELIEF:-

11. Petitioner is awarded Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% from the date of the filing of petition i.e 27.10.2009 till notice to the petitioner of deposit of the awarded amount in terms of Order 21 CPC Rule 1. At the outset, the liability shall be discharged by respondent No. 2 within one month of receipt/dispatch of award whichever is earlier.

12. Award is passed accordingly. Attested copies of award be furnished to the parties. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court                      ( Reena Singh Nag )
on 30th November, 2010                    Addl. District Judge-02/North-East
                                            Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

MACT No. 62/09                                                         Page 3 of 3