Delhi District Court
Sh. Piyush Rana vs Sh. Anil Vargis on 10 April, 2012
MACT Suit No. : 395/09/08 Page 1 of 10
.IN THE COURT OF MS. SHALINDER KAUR:
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL : NORTH EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA
COURTS : DELHI
MACT Suit No. : 395/09/08
Unique I.D. No. : 02402C0298392008
Sh. Piyush Rana
S/o Sh. D.S. Rana
R/o H. No. 193D, PocketII,
Dilshad Garden,
Delhi.
........Petitioner
Versus.
1. Sh. Anil Vargis
S/o sh. Than Kanchan
R/o H. No. J75/9, Dilshad Colony,
Delhi95.
IInd Address : C34, GTB Hospital Campus,
Delhi95.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
ROI, 4th Floor, Jeewan Bharti Bldg.,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi.
.....Respondents
MACT Suit No. : 395/09/08 Page 2 of 10
Date of institution of the case : 23/04/08 Date on which Award reserved : 14/03/12 Date on which Award pronounced : 10/04/12 AWARD
1. Petitioner Piyush Rana preferred a claim petition U/s 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for grant of compensation. Petitioner alleged that he suffered grievous injuries in an accident caused due to negligent and rash driving by respondent no. 1 of Alto Car bearing registration no. DL5CC6726. The vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., arrayed as respondent no. 2, therefore, both respondent no. 1 & 2 are liable to pay the compensation to him.
2. The petition was contested by both the respondents. Respondent no. 1 stated in his written statement that on 08/02/08, at about 8.30 am, he had gone to Greenway School to drop his wife who was a teacher in the school. He had parked his car near the school gate. After sometime, petitioner came on his motorcycle with a lady pillion rider and he dashed his motorcycle in the parked car. The security guard of the school informed him that somebody had hit his car. He then took the petitioner to GTB Hospital as he had suffered minor injuries on MACT Suit No. : 395/09/08 Page 3 of 10 his face. The father of the petitioner who had came in the hospital told to the respondent that petitioner had earlier also caused an accident due to his reckless driving in which one of his close friend had died. Respondent no. 1 further stated that the compensation, if any, was to be paid by respondent no. 2 as his vehicle was insured. Respondent no. 2 denied its liability to pay any compensation and raised various objections.
3. On the pleadings, following issues were framed on 30/11/09:
1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident which occurred on 08/02/08 at about 8.30 am at A & B Pocket Gate Greenway Model School, Near Hanuman Vatika, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Seemapuri involving car bearing regn. no. DL5CC6726 being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP.
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
4. To prove the claim, petitioner examined himself as PW1, Sh. Sidheshwar Ram, Field Worker, Cure Surgical as PW2 and Dr. Prashant Modi, Sr. Resident, Department of Orthopedic, MACT Suit No. : 395/09/08 Page 4 of 10 GTB Hospital, Delhi as PW3. The respondents did not examine any witness in defence.
Issue wise findings (Issue No. 1)
5. To prove that respondent no. 1 had caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving, petitioner stated in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, on 08/02/08, he was returning to his house at PocketH, Dilshad Garden, on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL5ST2055. Around 8.30 am, when he reached at BPocket Gate, Greenway Model School, Near Hanuman Vatika, Dilshad Garden, all of a sudden a Car bearing registration no. DL5CC6726, which was driven rashly and negligently and at a high speed by respondent no. 1 came and tried to turn. In the process, it hit his motorcycle, as a result petitioner fell on the road and received serious injuries all over his body. He was removed to GTB Hospital in a precarious condition where he was admitted.
6. Respondent no. 1 did not appear to crossexamine the witness, therefore, the testimony of petitioner remained unchallenged qua the manner in which the accident was caused. In crossexamination on behalf of respondent no. 2, the petitioner deposed that the offending car came from the opposite MACT Suit No. : 395/09/08 Page 5 of 10 side and there was no divider on the road. Respondent no. 1 had neither rebutted the accident nor challenged the manner in which the same was caused. Respondent no. 1 has also not proved the defence raised by him that the petitioner had rammed his motorcycle into his parked car outside the Greenway Public School.
7. On the other hand, the photocopies of the FIR, site plan and MLC of the petitioner, duly attested by SHO, P.S. Seemapuri are on record. The FIR bearing no. 45/08 has been registered on the statement of petitioner in which he had alleged that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by respondent no. 1. The site plan also supports the testimony of the petitioner. The accident had occurred in front of gate of Greenway Public School which could not be a place to park any vehicle, so as to block the main entrance to the school. Thus, from the oral as well as documentary evidence, adduced on record, it has been established that petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident which occurred on 08/02/08 at about 8.30 am at A & B Pocket Gate Greenway Model School, Near Hanuman Vatika, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Seemapuri involving car bearing regn. no. DL5CC6726 being MACT Suit No. : 395/09/08 Page 6 of 10 driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner.
Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of petitioner and against respondents.
Issue No. 2
8. Petitioner further stated in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, he was admitted in GTB Hospital and was discharged after some days. He proved his medical treatment record as Ex. PW1/2. He also stated that he had spent Rs. 1 lac on his medical treatment, Rs. 30,000/ on special diet and Rs. 25,000/ on conveyance. He proved his medical bills as Ex. PW1/3. As per petitioner, he had engaged an attendant and had paid him Rs. 4000/ p.m for six months. He stated that he worked in Sri Ram EPC and was earning Rs. 13,500/ per month and his salary slip was Ex. PW1/4. The accident had disabled him and he had suffered financial loss as well as loss on account of his health.
9. The medical treatment record of the petitioner Ex. PW1/2 reveals that he had suffered CLW 6 X 2 cm on right forehead, CLW of 3 X 2 cm on nose, CLW of 2 X 2 cm on right leg. On his forehead, he received stitches but no bony injury was found. Dr. Prashant Modi, PW3, deposed that the Xray of his right knee reveals no bony injury and the MRI findings revealed MACT Suit No. : 395/09/08 Page 7 of 10 suspension of partial tear of ligament of right knee. Thus, from the medical treatment record, it emerges that the petitioner had suffered only partial tear of ligament of his right knee but did not suffer any fracture.
10. Ex PW1/3 is a proforma invoice issued by Cure Surgical. PW2 deposed that an amount of Rs. 62085/ was paid by the petitioner. As per the said invoice, petitioner had purchased one set of Arthrex, Germany, ACL Transfix/PCL reconstruction system, ligament staple arthroscopy kit and the purchase of reconstruction system and kit was prescribed by Consultant AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi. However, the prescription from the AIIMS Hospital has not been placed on the record. Petitioner deposed that besides taking treatment in GTB Hospital and Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, he did not take treatment in any other hospital. But he further deposed that after getting discharged from GTB Hospital he took treatment in AIIMS Hospital. However, he did not state the said fact in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A or in his petition, therefore, same is an afterthought. No document has been placed on record to show that petitioner took treatment in AIIMS Hospital, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to recover the amount as compensation of the bill Ex. MACT Suit No. : 395/09/08 Page 8 of 10 PW1/3 amounting to Rs. 62085/.
11. Petitioner has also not placed on record any document to show that for how long he was advised medial rest but as he had suffered tear of his ligament in the knee due to which he would have disabled at least for a month to attend to his job. Ex. PW1/4 is the salary certificate of the petitioner, as per which he was drawing a salary of Rs. 13580/ per month. The petitioner is entitled to Rs. 13,580/ for loss of his salary.
12. The other medical bills of the petitioner are Ex. PW1/3 amounting to Rs. 8572/ to which he is also entitled. The petitioner could not prove that he had required the help of any attendant nor he has placed on record any document to show that he had taken help of any person during the period he was undergoing his treatment, therefore, no compensation is being awarded under the said head. The petitioner is stated to have taken treatment in different hospitals, Rs. 7000/ is awarded to him under the head of conveyance charges and Rs. 3,000/ towards special diet.
13. In addition to this, petitioner is also entitled to Rs. 20,000/ towards pain and agony suffered by the petitioner due to the accident.
MACT Suit No. : 395/09/08 Page 9 of 10
Thus, the total compensation would amount to Rs. 52,152/ being rounded off to Rs. 52,200/.
Liability
14. Respondent no. 2, National Insurance Co. Ltd. in the written statement admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with their company vide policy no. 3335774 w.e.f 28/12/07 to 27/12/08 in the name of Sh. Anil Vargis. No breach of any terms of the insurance policy has been pleaded by respondent no.
2. Thus, Respondent no. 2, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. Relief
15. Award is passed directing Respondent no. 2, National Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 52,200/ along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from date of filing of the petition till date of realization.
16. Payment is to be made by depositing separate cross cheque in favour of petitioner in court within thirty days from today under intimation to the petitioner. In case of default, further penal interest shall begin to accrue @ 12% p.a thereon, for each day default.
17. Attested copies of the award be furnished to the concerned MACT Suit No. : 395/09/08 Page 10 of 10 parties for compliance. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court (SHALINDER KAUR) Today on 10/04/2012 Presiding Officer, MACT (N/E) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.