Delhi District Court
Shakeel Ahmed vs Shri Jarnail Singh on 6 February, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA :
JUDGE : MACT : DELHI.
SUIT NO. 13/07
Shakeel Ahmed,
S/o.Anis Ahmed,
R/o.386, Old Mustafabad, Gali No.4,
Delhi.
Also R/o.
H.No.B-99, Gali No.19,
Man Singh Nagar, Old Mustafabad,
Near MCD School, Delhi. .......Petitioner.
Versus
1.Shri Jarnail Singh,
S/o.Sh.Maggi Singh,
R/o.Vill. & P.O. Thana, Bhawanigarh,
Distt. Sangroor (Punjab). (Driver & Owner)
2.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
DRO-II,
Gulab Bhawan,
Bahadur Shah Zaffar Marg,
New Delhi. (Insurance Company)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution : 02.02.2007
Date of Decision : 06.02.2008
2
SUIT NO : 14/07
Izhar,
S/o.Sh.Issar Ahmed,
R/o.Village Drabar Rajapur,
Block Anup Sahar
(Bulandsahar) UP. .......Petitioner.
Versus
1.Shri Jarnail Singh,
S/o.Sh.Maggi Singh,
R/o.Vill. & P.O. Thana, Bhawanigarh,
Distt. Sangroor (Punjab). (Driver & Owner)
2.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
DRO-II,
Gulab Bhawan,
Bahadur Shah Zaffar Marg,
New Delhi. (Insurance Company)
......... Respondents.
Date of Institution : 02.02.2007
Date of Decision : 06.02.2008
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of two petitions bearing no.
13/07 and 14/07 as they have arisen out of the same FIR bearing 3 no.614/05 U/s.279/338 IPC registered at Police Station Darya Ganj.
On 20/08/2007, it was ordered by the ld. Predecessor of this Court that both the matters be consolidated and Suit No.14/07 titled as Izhar Ahmed Vs. Jarnail Singh be treated as main case and evidence was also ordered to be recorded in that case.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that on the intervening night of 19/092/005 and 20/09/2005 at about 1.15 am, the petitioner Izhar Ahmed was travelling on a scooter bearing no.DL 8SA 1334 as pillion rider and his friend Shakeel Ahmed, who is petitioner in Suit no.13/07 was driving the scooter at a normal speed. When they had reached near Ghata Masjid, Darya Ganj, they met another friend and had stopped their scooter on the corner of the road, when suddenly a truck bearing registration no.PB 13E 7254 driven by respondent no.1 at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner came from the wrong side and had hit the scooter with great force, as a result thereof the petitioners had fallen down on the road alongwith the scooter and had sustained injuries. 4
3. Written Statement was filed by ld.counsel for respondent no.1 wherein it is stated that the petitioners have 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.2 Insurance Company wherein it is stated that petition does not disclose any cause of action. It is however admitted that offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.2 vide cover note no.361300/31/04/07/00003176 and the insurance policy was valid from 25/02/2005 to 24/02/2006.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed in both the petitions:
(i). Whether the petitioner suffered grievous injuries on the intervening night of 19/09/2005 and 20/09/2005 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.PB 13E 7254 by R1?
(ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?5
(iii) Relief.
6. PW-1 Shakeel Ahmed tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and stated that on the intervening night of 19/092/005 and 20/09/2005 at about 1.15 am, the petitioner Izhar Ahmed was travelling on a scooter bearing no.DL 8SA 1334 as pillion rider and he was driving the scooter at a normal speed. When they had reached near Ghata Masjid, Darya Ganj, they met another friend and had stopped their scooter on the corner of the road, when suddenly a truck bearing registration no.PB 13E 7254 driven by respondent no.1 at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner came from the wrong side and had hit the scooter with great force, as a result thereof both of them had fallen down on the road alongwith the scooter and had sustained injuries. He further stated that both of them were removed to LNJP Hospital. He had suffered fracture of his left leg and fracture of his shoulder. He had also suffered fracture of his left hip bone. The petitioners also filed on record certain copies of the criminal record. 6
It is also stated he was self employed and was manufacturing purse, bags etc and was earning about R.5,000/-. Due to the accident, he remained confined to bed for about four months.
On being cross examined by ld.counsel for respondents, he admitted that he has no document in respect of his occupation. He also admitted that he has not filed any disability certificate on record.
7. PW-2 Izhar Ahmed, who is petitioner in Suit No.14/07 also stated similar facts as stated by PW-1 in his affidavit which was tendered in evidence and proved certified copies of the criminal record Ex.PW-2/1 to Ex.PW-2/10. He also filed on record the medical treatment record alongwith the receipts for purchase of medicines Ex.PW-2/5. He further stated that at the time of accident he had suffered fracture of collar bone, his teeth were broken alongwith other multiple injuries all over his body.
He also stated that at the time of accident, he was a student 7 of 10th class and was studying from IGNOU. He was also doing part time work of manufacturing of ladies purses etc. Due to the accident, he remained confined to bed for four months.
On being cross examined by ld.counsel for respondents, he denied that the scooter was parked on the wrong side. He also admitted that he has no documentary proof to show that he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. He admitted that he has not filed any disability certificate on record.
8. Petitioner evidence was closed.
9. Respondents did not lead any evidence in support of their claim.
10. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld Counsel for petitioners as well as for the respondents. After hearing arguments and having gone through the record, I record my findings on issues framed as follows:
8
11.ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CLAIM PETITIONS:
Whether the petitioners suffered grievous injuries on the intervening night of 19/09/2005 and 20/09/2005 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.PB 13E 7254 by R1?
A criminal case has been registered vide FIR No. 614/2005, which supports the claim of the petitioner that the injuries were received by them due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and the accident had taken place with the offending vehicle.
A perusal of the criminal record also shows that the police investigation has also concluded that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
The petitioners have stated in their statement that the offending vehicle bearing no.PB 13E 7254 was being driven by respondent no.1 at a very high speed in a rash and negligent 9 manner and had hit the petitioner. Due to the impact of the same, the petitioners had fallen down on the road and had sustained multiple grievous injuries including fractures and other multiple injuries all over the body. FIR No.614/05, u/s.279/338 of IPC was registered at Police Station Darya Ganj against respondent no.1.
A perusal of the medical record pertaining to petitioner Shakeel Ahmed shows that he had suffered fracture in his left leg and cast was applied and medical record pertaining to petitioner Izhar Ahmed shows that he had suffered fracture of ribs. Even in their MLCs, it has also been mentioned that the patient had suffered injuries in road traffic accident.
I have also gone through the FIR filed on record wherein the factum of accident and rash and negligent driving has been mentioned since the respondent no.1 was coming at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and had caused the accident. 10
It is therefore prima facie clear that the accident had taken place with the offending vehicle driven by respondent no.1 causing grievous injuries to the petitioner.
Therefore, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
12.Issue No.2: for both suit no. 13/07 and 14/07 Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
Since, issue no.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioners that the injureds had suffered injuries in the accident with the offending vehicle. The petitioners are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.
Since the respondents have not lead any evidence regarding the fact that they are not liable to pay any compensation or that the accident had taken place due to the fault on the part of the petitioners, therefore they have not discharged the burden of 11 proving this issue.
13. Coming to the compensation regarding the Suit No.13/07 wherein petitioner Shakeel Ahmed was injured. LOSS OF INCOME Since the cast which was put on the left leg of petitioner was removed after about one month and thereafter he had to remain under physiotherapy, I therefore assess the loss of income to be two months. Since the petitioner has not filed on record any proof of income, minimum wages of the unskilled labourer at the time of accident will be considered. As per Schedule II of the M.V. Act the minimum wages as on the night intervening of 19/09/05 and 20/09/05 of unskilled person were Rs.3,165.90/- (round figure Rs.3,200/-).
Considering the same, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of 3,200 x 2 which comes to Rs.6,400/- i.e. loss of income.
12MEDICINES.
A perusal of the medical record of petitioner Shakeel Ahmed shows that he had suffered fracture in his left leg and cast was applied and the same was removed on 20/10/2005. There is no other treatment record therein. The medical bills which have been filed on record amount to about Rs.1,000/-. It is not disputed that the treatment at LNJP Hospital is free of cost. I am inclined to grant Rs.2,000/- for cost of treatment and purchase of medicines to petitioner Shakeel Ahmed.
PAIN AND SUFFERING.
The petitioner was discharged from the hospital on the same day. However, since he had suffered fracture of the left leg and the cast was applied and the same was removed on 20/10/2005 i.e. after about one month and even thereafter he had to undergo at physiotherapy etc. I am therefore inclined to grant compensation of Rs.20,000/- for pain and sufferings undergone by him.
13CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET.
The petitioner had suffered grievous injuries including fracture of the left leg and cast was applied on the same. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, he would have had visited the doctors and hospitals several times thereafter. I, therefore award a total sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation for conveyance and for Special diet to the petitioner.
14.RELIEF In view of my finding on issues no.1 and 2, the petitioner, Shakeel Ahmed is awarded following compensation:-
Loss of income : Rs.6,400/-
Medicines : Rs.2,000/-
Pain and suffering : Rs.20,000/-
Conveyance & Special Diet : Rs.4,000/-
Total : Rs.32,400/-
15. Hence, the petitioner is awarded compensation of
14
Rs.32,400/- with 7.5 % per annum interest from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 02/02/07 till its realization. The said amount be given in cash.
16. In view of my above discussion on issue no.1, I am of the view that since petitioner has received injuries by the involvement of offending vehicle, Respondent no.1 being driver as well as owner and respondent no.2 Insurance Company of the offending vehicle are jointly and severely liable to make the payment of compensation to petitioner.
17. Respondent No. 2 is directed to place on record the cheque of compensation within 30 days. File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of the order be given dasti to retainer of insurance company for compliance.
18.Coming to the compensation regarding the Suit No.14/04 wherein petitioner Izhar Ahmed was injured.
15LOSS OF INCOME He stated in his evidence that at the time of accident he had suffered fracture of collar bone. His teeth were broken alongwith other multiple injuries all over his body and due to the accident, he remained confined to bed for four months. However, there is nothing on record to show that he remained confined to bed for four months. He had suffered fracture which might have been removed after about one month and thereafter he had to remain under physiotherapy, I therefore assess the loss of income to be two months.
The petitioner has stated that at the time of accident he was a student of 10th class and was studying from IGNOU. However, he has not placed on record any document to show that he was studying in 10th class. He stated that he was 19 years of age on the day of accident. He stated that he was also doing part time work of manufacturing of ladies purses etc. Since the petitioner has not filed on record any proof of income, minimum wages of the unskilled labourer at the time of accident will be considered. As per Schedule 16 II of the M.V. Act the minimum wages as on the night intervening of 19/09/05 and 20/09/05 of unskilled person were Rs.3,165.90/- (round figure Rs.3,200/-).
Considering the same, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of 3,200 x 2 which comes to Rs.6,400/- i.e. loss of income.
MEDICINES.
The medical treatment record pertaining to petitioner Izhar Ahmed clearly shows that the petitioner had suffered fracture of the ribs. No other grievous injury has been found on his person as is clear from his medical treatment record. The medical record which has been filed by the petitioner shows that he remained under treatment till 28/09/2005. On 26/09/2005 the petitioner was again directed to attend the OPD after three weeks. There is no mention in the medical treatment record regarding loss of teeth or fracture of the jaw. It is therefore, clear that the petitioner had to attend the hospital till 15/10/2005. He has not filed on record any bills for 17 purchase of medicines etc. It is not disputed that the treatment at LNJP Hospital is free of cost. I am inclined to grant token amount of Rs.2,000/- for cost of treatment and purchase of medicines to petitioner Izhar Ahmed.
PAIN AND SUFFERING.
The petitioner was discharged from the hospital on the same day. However, since he had suffered fracture and even thereafter he had to remain at physiotherapy etc. The tribunal is inclined to grant compensation for Rs.20,000/- for pain and sufferings undergone by him.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET.
The petitioner had suffered grievous injuries including fracture. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, he would have had visited the doctors and hospitals several times thereafter. I, therefore award a total sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation for conveyance and for Special diet to 18 the petitioner.
19.RELIEF In view of my finding on issues no.1 and 2, the petitioner, Izhar Ahmed is awarded following compensation:-
Loss of income : Rs.6,400/- Medicines : Rs.2,000/- Pain and suffering : Rs.20,000/- Conveyance & Special Diet : Rs.4,000/- Total : Rs.32,400/- 20. Hence, the petitioner is awarded compensation of
Rs.32,400/- with 7.5 % per annum interest from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 02/02/07 till its realization. The said amount be given in cash.
21. In view of my above discussion on issue no.1, I am of the view that since petitioner has received injuries by the involvement 19 of offending vehicle, Respondent no.1 being driver as well as owner and respondent no.2 Insurance Company of the offending vehicle are jointly and severely liable to make the payment of compensation to petitioner.
22. Respondent No. 2 is directed to place on record the cheque of compensation within 30 days. File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of the order be given dasti to retainer of insurance company for compliance.
Announced in open court (SWARAN KANTA) on 06/02/2008. JUDGE : MACT : DELHI