Delhi District Court
Jitender Kumar vs . P.K. Sujathan & Anr. on 28 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN:
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT/ SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Suit No. 708/11
Unique ID no. 02406C0316262011
Jitender Kumar Vs. P.K. Sujathan & anr.
Injury Case
Sh. Jitender Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish Chand
R/o House no. B807, Sangam Vihar
New Delhi110062
........................... Petitioner/Claimant
Versus
1. Sh. P.K. Sujathan S/o Sh. K. Kesavan (driver cum owner)
R/o Flat no. 165/D, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar PhaseIII,
Delhi110096
2. National Company Insurance Limited
Division No. 10, Flat No. 101106
N1, BMC House, Connaught Place
New Delhi110001
...........................Respondents
Date of Institution : 13.09.2011 Date of reserving the judgment : 28.07.2014 Date of pronouncement : 28.07.2014 Judgment:
1. Present claim petition filed u/s 166/140 MV Act on 13.09.2011.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.03.2011 at around 01.30 pm, petitioner Jitender kumar Vs. P.K. Sujathan & anr.. suit no.708/11 (Pg 1 of 8) while going towards Noida from Sangam Vihar driving his motorcycle when crossed RTO checkpost Okhla, offending wagonR car DL3 CZ 8847 driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle due to which petitioner fell down on road and suffered grievous injuries, thereafter he was immediately removed to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Multi speciality hospital Noida, then shifted to Safdarjung hospital.
3. An FIR No.115/2011under Section 279/338/427 IPC, PSSector 39 Noida was registered. During investigation police recorded the statement of injured, prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, collected MLC, seized offending car, conducted its mechanical inspection, arrested respondent no.1 driver. On completion of investigation found respondent no.1 driver accused of rash and negligent driving, hence chargesheeted him for the commission of offence u/s 279/338/427 IPC.
4. R1 driver cum owner in his WS denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving, however stated that the matter was amicably settled with the petitioner in FIR case for a total sum of Rs. 20,000/. Insurance company in its reply admitted that offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company, however reserves its right to raise statutory defence later on.
5. During inquiry, following issues are framed: (1.) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 25.03.2011 at about 01.30 pm involving offending wagon R car bearing no. DL3C Z 8847 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.1 and insured by respondent no. 2 Jitender kumar Vs. P.K. Sujathan & anr.. suit no.708/11 (Pg 2 of 8) (insurance company) ? OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?
(3) Relief.
6. Vide order dated 21.08.2013 petitioner's interest was closed from 21.08.2013 till the conclusion of PE. PE was closed vide order dated 18.07.2014, hence petitioner is not entitled to interest from 21.08.2013 till 18.07.2014.
7. During evidence, petitioner examined himself as PW1. No evidence is led by any of the respondents. Driver cum owner during proceedings stopped appearing. An application u/s 170 MV Act filed by the insurance company allowed vide order dated 10.02.2014.
8. After hearing arguments and considering the material on record, my issue wise findings are as follows: Issue no. 1 (Negligence)
9. Petitioner PW1 in his affidavit of evidence (Ex. PW1/A) categorically stated that on 25.03.2011 at around 01.30pm, petitioner driving his motorcycle when crossed RTO Checkpost Noida then offending car driven by R1 in rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle of the petitioner due to which he suffered grievous injuries. Nothing came in cross examination to disbelieve his version. His version is duly corroborated by police investigation. Police during investigation also found respondent no.1 accused of rash and negligent driving Jitender kumar Vs. P.K. Sujathan & anr.. suit no.708/11 (Pg 3 of 8) hence chargesheet him for commission of offence u/s 279/338/427 IPC. No evidence to the contrary led by driver cum owner.
10. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Basant Kaur & Ors Vs. Chattar Pal Singh and Ors" [2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB)], wherein it has been held that registration of a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle is enough to record the finding that the driver of offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident. Further it has been held in catena of cases that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings as in civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. I am also being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "National Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana" (2009 ACJ 287), wherein it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be constructed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one. Jitender kumar Vs. P.K. Sujathan & anr.. suit no.708/11 (Pg 4 of 8)
11. In view of the above discussion, petitioner able to prove that he suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the R1. Accordingly the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Issue no 2 (Compensation) Medical Expenses :
12. PW1 in his affidavit of evidence stated that after accident, he was removed to Bhimrao Ambedkar hospital Noida. As per emergency slip (Ex. PW1/1) of Bhimrao Ambedkar hospital petitioner is found to have suffered injuries in the left leg in the road traffic accident. Thereafter petitioner treated himself at Safdarjung hospital. As per discharge summary (Ex.PW1/2) of Safdarjung hospital, petitioner admitted on 26.03.2011, thereafter discharged on the same day 26.03.2011 and diagnosed to have suffered # Bimalleolas, (l+) ankle, # base of 1st M.T(l), # neck of 2nd M.T (L) side, one DNVD. During hospitalisation ORIF operation of the petitioner was conducted with the help of screws and tubular plates. As per OPD cards of Safdarjung hospital (Ex. PW1/3, PW1/4) petitioner is found to be under treatment till 26.07.2011. Petitioner for claiming expenses relied upon medical bills(Ex. PW1/6 colly) for a total sum of Rs.
9,299/. Nothing came in cross examination to dispute the genuineness of these bills. Hence, as sum of Rs. 9,299/is granted to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
13. Compensation for pain and suffering: Petitioner is found to have suffered grievous fracture injuries and undergone ORIF operation. Keeping in view of Jitender kumar Vs. P.K. Sujathan & anr.. suit no.708/11 (Pg 5 of 8) the nature of injuries, duration of treatment and trauma of accident, a sum of Rs.50,000/is granted towards pain and suffering.
14. Loss of Income during treatment: Petitioner in his affidavit of evidence stated that at the time of accident he was working with advocate Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma as a Clerk and drawing salary of Rs. 10,000/ per month, however in cross examination he stated that he does not have any documentary evidence of salary and only 8th pass. He further deposed in cross examination that he does not have any documentary proof regarding his employment. Petitioner not proved his vocation by examining employer. As per fitness certificate (Ex. PW1/5) petitioner is found to remain absent from duty for about 42 days. Though petitioner unable to prove his vocation but it cannot be inferred that petitioner was not working. Thus, keeping in view nature of injuries , duration of treatment and vocation of petitioner, a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/ is granted to the petitioner towards loss of income during treatment.
15. Compensation for Special Diet, Attendant Charges and Conveyance: Petitioner in his affidavit of evidence stated that he spent around 10,000/ on conveyance, 25,000/ on special diet and further Rs. 15,000/ on attendant charges but not led any corroborating evidence documentary or oral to substantiate present expenses, however it cannot be inferred that petitioner has not spent any expenses under present head. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and duration of treatment a lumpsum amount of Rs. 30,000/ is Jitender kumar Vs. P.K. Sujathan & anr.. suit no.708/11 (Pg 6 of 8) granted under present head.
16. Thus, the total compensation to which petitioner is entitled comes as under: S.No Details Amount 1 Medical Expenses Rs.9,299/ Compensation for special diet, attendant charges Rs.30,000/ 2 and conveyance 3 Compensation for pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/ 4 Loss of Income during treatment Rs. 10,000/ Total Rs. 99,299/ Hence, the petitioner is awarded a total amount of Rs. 99,299/(Rupees Ninety nine thousand two hundred ninety nine only).
Relief :
17. The petitioner is hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 99,299/((Rupees Ninety nine thousand two hundred ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present petition till the date of realization in favour of petitioner against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
18. The R1 being driver is the principal tort feasor, and being owner vicariously liable for acts of driver and R2 insurance company liable to indemnify the owner.
Jitender kumar Vs. P.K. Sujathan & anr.. suit no.708/11 (Pg 7 of 8)
19. In view of the above discussion, insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount in the court within a period of 30 days from today alongwith the interest @ 9% per annum, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be charged for the period of delay.
20. The award amount shall be deposited in the account of petitioner with the State Bank of India and shall be released where after to the petitioner.
21. The petitioner is directed to get their account opened at State Bank of India, Saket Branch, after receiving the copy of the award. The copy of the award shall be given to the parties. It is directed that the respondent insurance company will make an endorsement of the title of the case, suit number, name of the parties and other relevant details while depositing the cheque in the bank.
The compliance be made by all concerned.
22. Copy of this order be given dasti to the parties.
23. Put up for receiving the compliance on 28.08.2014.
Announced in open Court
Dated: 28.07.2014 (Ajay Kumar Jain)
POMACT02/(South East District)
Saket, New Delhi/28.07.2014
Jitender kumar Vs. P.K. Sujathan & anr.. suit no.708/11 (Pg 8 of 8)