Delhi District Court
Smt. Radha Bansal vs Rashid Khan on 30 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJLI GOEL, PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL2, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No.170/14
Date of Institution:30.01.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. Radha Bansal
W/o Shri Ramesh Chand
R/o H.No. C3/218, Janakpuri
New Delhi. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Rashid Khan
S/o Shri Nasruddin
R/o H.No.37
Village Mandarka
Tehsil Tauru, Distt. Mewat
Haryana.
2. NKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Office Behind PNB Building
Qutabpur Rewari, Distt. Rewari
Haryana.
3. L&T Insurance
DCM Building, 5th Floor
16 Barakhamba Road
New Delhi. ...Respondents
Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 1 of 23
Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
Final Arguments heard : 14.01.2015 Award reserved for : 30.01.2015 Date of Award : 30.01.2015 AWARD
1. Vide this judgmentcumaward, I proceed to decide claim petition u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as amended uptodate (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of compensation arising out of a road accident.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 01.05.2013 at around 2.20 a.m. she was coming along with Ms. Sujata in the car of Ms. Sujata, Maruti Zen Estilo Car No.DL9CS6004 after attending a function and she was going to her residence via Dhaula Kuan, Delhi Cantt. It is averred that suddenly and abruptly the offending rodi Dumper Truck hit their car with a very high speed at Thimmaya Red Light/Chowk, Delhi Cantt. It is averred that the offending Dumper Truck was being driven by the respondent No.1 in a most rash and negligent manner, in a very high speed in a total contravention of traffic rules and regulation, without caring for the other traffic on the road and in the process hit the car from the left side; the injured person's car was dragged for about 60 feet due to the impact and high speed of the offending Dumper Truck and the respondent No.1 was also trying to escape from the accident site, but he was caught by others. It is averred that from the place of the accident the injured was taken to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. It is averred that the claimant suffered major injuries due to the accident and the vehicle of Sujata had major Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 2 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
damages. It is averred that the injured person had lost her handbag containing cash, gold/ diamond locket set, rings, diamond earrings and other items. It is averred that the accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 who was driving the offending Dumper Truck bearing No.HR47B7785 at the time of causing the accident and innocent person became the victim without her fault. It is stated that in respect of the accident FIR No.139/13 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt. It is averred that the petitioner was 51 years old and self employed and had an annual income of Rs.18,00,000/. It is averred that the petitioner had sustained fracture and other injuries and she was treated at Base Hospital, Fortis, Shalimar Bagh, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital and other hospitals and from the day of the accident she was still under treatment. It is prayed that an amount of Rs.30 lacs be awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents jointly, severally and vicariously.
3. Reply was filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 taking the preliminary objections that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle had a valid and effective DL bearing No.A1797/C2/12 valid upto 14.10.2015. It is averred that the FIR is lodged u/s 279/337/338 IPC against the accused on false and fabricated grounds. It is averred that there is no liability of the respondents No.1 and 2 to the factum of the accident. It is averred that the alleged offending vehicle No.HR47B7785 (Truck) was insured with the Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 3 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
respondent No.3/insurer i.e. L&T insurance (Future Taxi Commercial Comprehensive) policy vide policy No.915105001460170000 validity 29.12.2013 and was also having valid permit and fitness certificate. It is averred that no accident had taken place by the alleged offending vehicle driven by its driver and the local police in connivance with the petitioner had falsely implicated the alleged offending vehicle. The contents of the FIR as to the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle were denied. It is averred that the driver of the insured vehicle was not negligent in driving the vehicle. All allegations as made with regard to the factum of the alleged accident and cause thereof, the involvement of the insured vehicle sustained by the injured's negligence on the part of the insured vehicle were denied.
4. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 taking the preliminary objections that the respondent No.1 would have to prove that he was holding a valid and effective DL on the date of the alleged accident authorizing him to drive the vehicle in question. It is averred that the contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and if the insured wants to take the benefit of the contract of insurance, then he would have to prove that the alleged offending vehicle was not being driven in contravention of the insurance policy; the driver on the wheel of the alleged offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective DL at the time of the alleged accident; the alleged offending vehicle was being driven with valid permit covering the alleged place of the accident and the alleged offending vehicle was being driven with valid fitness covering Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 4 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
the alleged date of the accident and in case the insured/owner failed to prove the same then no liability could be fastened upon the respondent No.3 nor if it was proved that the vehicle was being plied under contract with any one and under control of someone else. It is averred that the respondent No.3 has no knowledge about the alleged accident and the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the alleged accident took place were denied. It is averred that the petition is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of DL9CS6004 (Maruti Zen) had not been impleaded as respondent. The averments made in the claim petition were denied. It is admitted that the vehicle bearing No.HR47B7785 (truck) was insured with the respondent No.3 in the name of M/s NKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vide policy No.91510500 1460170000. It is averred that the amount claimed by the petitioner is not only excessive and exorbitant but bears no relevance to the actual loss suffered.
5. Initially the Detailed Accident Report was filed by the IO on 9.12.2013 and thereafter the claim petition was filed on 30.1.2014. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 12.05.2014:
1. Whether the injured sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 01.05.2013 at about 2.20 a.m while going home near Thimmaya Red Light/Chowk, Delhi Cantt. caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.HR 47 B 7785 driven by respondent no.1 and owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP.Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 5 of 23
Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
2. Whether the injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
6. The petitioner Ms. Radha Bansal appeared in the witness box as PW1 and led her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. She deposed that it was advised by the doctor to take complete bed rest as the injuries would take long time to recover. She stated that she along with her family was disturbed and suffered a lot of problems both mentally, physically and financially due to the accident and at present she was taking medicines for her injuries. She stated that due to the said incidents she suffered many losses and was facing many problems in respect of her health and many other day to day problems. Copy of Income Tax is Ex.PW1/1, the copy of medical report is Ex.PW1/2 (colly) and copy of DAR is Ex.PW1/3 (colly). PE was closed on 1.9.2014. It was stated by the learned counsel for the insurance company that no RE was to be led and RE was closed on 11.8.2014.
7. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 and perused the record. The petitioner was also examined on 1.9.2014 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court on 11.1.2013 in MACA No.792/2006 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ranjit Pandey and Ors.
Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 6 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
8. My findings on the specific issues are as under:
Issue No. 1
9. As the petition has been filed U/s 166 M.V Act it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that she sustained injuries in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle it has been held in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pushpa Rana & Another 2009 Accident Claims Journal 287 as follows:
"The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents/claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V. Meena Variyal (supra). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of offending vehicle (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code against the driver;
(iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of deceased.
These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 7 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on part of the driver."
It is established law that in a claim petition under Motor Vehicle Act, the standard of proof to establish rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle is not at par with the criminal case where such rashness and negligence is required to be proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. In Kaushnamma Begum and others v. New India Assurance Company Limited, it was inter alia held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injury or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
10. The case of the petitioner is that on 01.05.2013 at around 2.20 a.m. she was coming along with Ms. Sujata in the car of Ms. Sujata, Maruti Zen Estilo Car No.DL9CS6004 after attending a function and she was going to her residence via Dhaula Kuan, Delhi Cantt. It was averred that suddenly and abruptly the offending rodi Dumper Truck hit their car with a very high speed at Thimmaya Red Light/Chowk, Delhi Cantt. It was averred that the offending Dumper Truck was being driven by the respondent No.1 in a most rash and negligent manner, in a very high speed in a total contravention of traffic rules and regulation, without caring for the other traffic on the road and in the Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 8 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
process hit the car from the left side; the injured person's car was dragged for about 60 feet due to the impact and high speed of the offending Dumper Truck and the respondent No.1 was also trying to escape from the accident site, but he was caught by others. It was averred that from the place of the accident the injured was taken to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. and the claimant suffered major injuries due to the accident. It was averred that the accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 who was driving the offending Dumper Truck bearing No.HR47B7785 at the time of causing the accident and innocent person became the victim without her fault. It was stated that in respect of the accident FIR No.139/13 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt. The petitioner in para 2 of her affidavit Ex.PW1/A had reiterated the mode and manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition.
11. The IO had filed the Detailed Accident Report on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner containing the criminal record consisting of copy of charge sheet; copy of FIR; copy of MLC, copy of site plan; copy of arrest memo, copy of seizure memos; copy of mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle bearing No.HR47B7785 and of car bearing No.DL9CS6004, copy of DL of the respondent No.1 with its verification report, copy of RC of the offending vehicle, copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle, copy of permit of the offending vehicle with its verification report and copy of medical bills. As per the FIR No.139/13 under sections Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 9 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
279/337/338 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt the case was registered on the basis of the complaint of SI Narender Singh (on DD). As per the charge sheet the respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under sections 279/337/338 IPC.
12. The respondents No.1 and 2 had filed the reply averring that the FIR was lodged u/s 279/337/338 IPC against the accused on false and fabricated grounds. It was averred that there was no liability of the respondents No.1 and 2 to the factum of the accident. It was averred that no accident had taken place by the alleged offending vehicle driven by its driver and the local police in connivance with the petitioner had falsely implicated the alleged offending vehicle. The contents of the FIR as to the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle were denied. It was averred that the driver of the insured vehicle was not negligent in driving the vehicle. All allegations as made with regard to the factum of the alleged accident and cause thereof, the involvement of the insured vehicle sustained by the injured's negligence on the part of the insured vehicle were denied. However the respondents No.1 and 2 did not appear to crossexamine PW1 or to lead their evidence. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 denied the suggestion that the driver of their car was rash and negligent in which she was traveling volunteered she had lost her valuable jewelry. Thus only a suggestion was put to PW1 which she denied. The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle shows fresh damage to the front bumper and Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 10 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
jali and the front right side indicator was broken while the mechanical inspection report of the car in which the petitioner was travelling shows damage to the left side of the body and windows and glass. The respondent No.1 who is the driver and the respondent No.2 who is the owner of the offending vehicle have not adduced any evidence to dispute the version put forth by the petitioner or in the criminal record. The criminal record has been placed on record which shows that the respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 279/337/338 IPC. In Basant Kaur and others v. Chattar Pal Singh and others 2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB) it was observed that registration of criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle was enough to record a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident. The respondents have also not led any evidence to prove any other version of the accident. There is no evidence from the respondents to disprove the particulars of the accident or the involvement of vehicle No.HR47B7785. In view of the testimony of PW1 and the documents on record which have remained unrebutted, the negligence of the respondent No.1 has been prima facie proved.
13. It was stated that from the place of the accident the injured was taken to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. and the claimant suffered major injuries due to the accident. The MLC of the injured/petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by her and as per the same the injuries in respect of the petitioner were opined to be grievous in nature. Thus it stands established that Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 11 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
the petitioner had sustained injuries in the alleged accident. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Issue No.2
14. Since issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioner she would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Act. The law is well settled that the compensation has to be awarded in personal injury cases under the following heads: (1) for loss of earnings during the period of treatment (2) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (3) expenses suffered by the injured on treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food etc. In addition, the injured is further entitled to nonpecuniary damages/general damages which include (1) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries and (2) loss of expectation of life.
MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT
15. The case of the petitioner is that from the place of the accident on 1.5.2013 the injured was taken to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. and the claimant suffered major injuries due to the accident. It was averred that the petitioner had sustained fracture and other injuries and she was treated at Base Hospital, Fortis, Shalimar Bagh, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital and other Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 12 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
hospitals and from the day of the accident she was still under treatment. The petitioner in paras 2 to 4 of her affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. She stated that it was advised by the doctor to take complete bed rest as the injuries would take long time to recover. She stated that she along with her family was disturbed and suffered a lot of problems both mentally, physically and financially due to the accident and at present she was taking medicines for her injuries. She stated that due to the said incidents she suffered many losses and was facing many problems in respect of her health and many other day to day problems. Copy of the medical report is Ex.PW1/2 (colly). The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the nature of injuries was opined to be grievous. The documents placed on record show that she had sustained fracture of right clavicle at lateral and middle third junction and fracture of 5th rib on right. The petitioner had produced one OPD card dated 25.1.2014 but there is nothing to show continuity of treatment. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability due to the accident.
16. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 denied the suggestion that the entire bills were forged and fabricated and not attached with any doctor prescription. She stated that she was not having any personal accident policy or any mediclaim policy. She stated that she had not filed any disability certificate. She denied the suggestion that she was physically fit volunteered she was not able to work Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 13 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
properly after the accident. She stated that she had not filed any advice in writing from the doctor for bed rest. She denied the suggestion that she had reimbursed her bills from the insurance company and due to that she had not filed the original bills volunteered she had seen the file of Sujata v Rashid Khan wherein the original bills were lying. Thus PW1 stated that she was not having any personal accident policy or any mediclaim policy. She stated that she had not filed any disability certificate and there is nothing to show that she had got any disability due to the accident. She stated that she had not filed any advice in writing from the doctor for bed rest. She had volunteered that she had seen the file of Sujata v Rashid Khan wherein the original bills were lying and a perusal of the said file shows that the original bills in respect of the petitioner Radha Bansal were there in the said file. The petitioner had not stated how much amount she had spent on her treatment and medicines. The petitioner had filed bills for an amount of Rs.37,106/ approximately though most of the bills pertained to physiotherapy. Looking to the nature of the injuries the petitioner is held entitled to the amount of the bills. The petitioner would incur some expenses even subsequently. Accordingly an amount of Rs. 38,000/ is awarded towards medical treatment and expenses including the amount of the bills.
Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 14 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
17. It has been held in Divisional Controller, K. S. R. T. C v Mahadeva Shetty and another AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4172 as under:
13."The damages for vehicular accidents are in the nature of compensation in money for loss of any kind caused to any person. In case of personal injury the position is different from loss of property. In the later case there is possibility of repair or restoration. But in the case of personal injury, the possibility of repair or restoration is practically nonexistent. In Parry V. Cleaver (1969 1 All. E. R. 555) Lord Morris stated as follows:
"To compensate in money for pain and for the physical consequences is invariably difficult, but...... no other process can be devised than that of making monetary assessment."
The case of the petitioner is that from the place of the accident on 1.5.2013 the injured was taken to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. and the claimant suffered major injuries due to the accident. It was averred that the petitioner had sustained fracture and other injuries and she was treated at Base Hospital, Fortis, Shalimar Bagh, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital and other hospitals and from the day of the accident she was still under treatment. The petitioner stated that it was advised by the doctor to take complete bed rest as the injuries would take long time to recover. She stated that she along with her family was disturbed and suffered a lot of problems both mentally, physically and financially due to the accident and at present she was taking medicines for her injuries. She stated that due to the said incidents she suffered many Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 15 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
losses and was facing many problems in respect of her health and many other day to day problems. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the nature of injuries was opined to be grievous. The documents placed on record show that she had sustained fracture of right clavicle at lateral and middle third junction and fracture of 5th rib on right. The petitioner had produced one OPD card dated 25.1.2014 but there is nothing to show continuity of treatment. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability due to the accident. Looking at the nature of injuries and extent of treatment and that the accident pertains to the year 2013, the petitioner is awarded Rs.25,000/ (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only) for pain and suffering.
18. The petitioner was stated to be 51 years old and it was so stated in the claim petition. The medical documents also show the age of the petitioner to be 51 years. Notice can be taken of the fact that on account of the injuries sustained by her the petitioner may not have been able to perform her day to day duties towards her family and on account of the injuries suffered by her the petitioner may not have been able to enjoy the amenities of life. In the circumstances the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/ (Rs.Ten Thousand only) for loss of amenities of life. The petitioner cannot however be held to be entitled to any amount towards loss of expectation of life or towards disfiguration.
Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 16 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
19. It is the case of the petitioner that she had lost her handbag containing cash, gold/ diamond locket set, rings, diamond earrings and other items. PW1 had also deposed to that effect. However the petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that she had made any complaint regarding the loss of valuable articles or got any FIR registered in that respect nor produced any document in respect of the articles which were allegedly lost. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 denied the suggestion that the driver of their car was rash and negligent in which she was traveling volunteered she had lost her valuable jewelry. She stated that she had intimated the same to the police in respect of the lost jewelry. She stated that she had not intimated to the police in writing about her lost jewelry. She denied the suggestion that she had stated falsely about her lost jewelry. Thus PW1 stated that she had intimated the loss of valuable jewelry to the police though she had not intimated the police in writing about her lost jewelry. However there is nothing to substantiate that the petitioner had lost valuable items in the accident and accordingly she cannot be held entitled to any amount of this account.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
20. Although the petitioner has not filed any document on record in order to prove the expenditure on conveyance however, notice can be taken of the fact that after the accident the petitioner was taken to Base Hospital and she was Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 17 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
treated at other hospitals and that after discharge from hospital she might have hired the services of private conveyance as she would not have been able to drive of her own or to use public conveyance. In the circumstances a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs.Five Thousand only) would be just and proper towards conveyance charges.
21. Although the petitioner has not proved that she was advised special diet but looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner notice can be taken of the fact that the petitioner might have taken diet rich in protein, vitamins and minerals for speedier recovery. In the circumstances the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs.Five Thousand only) for special diet.
22. Although the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that she incurred any expenses towards attendant charges, however looking to the nature of injuries the petitioner would have incurred some expenditure on attendant charges and a sum of Rs.9,000/ is awarded towards attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
23. It is the case of the petitioner that she was 51 years old and self employed and had an annual income of Rs.18,00,000/. The petitioner in paras Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 18 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
3 and 4 of her affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. She stated that it was advised by the doctor to take complete bed rest as the injuries would take long time to recover. She along with her family were disturbed and suffered lot of problems both mentally, physically and financially due to the accident. She stated due to the said incidents she suffered many losses and was facing many problems in respect of her health and many other day to day problems. However there is nothing on record to show what the petitioner was doing at the time of the accident. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 stated that she is director in the company of her husband Clockner Housing & Traders Pvt. Ltd. She denied the suggestion that she had no loss of any income due to the accident. She stated that she had not filed any disability certificate. She denied the suggestion that she was physically fit volunteered she was not able to work properly after the accident. She stated that she had not filed any advice in writing from the doctor for bed rest. Thus PW1 stated that she was director in the company of her husband Clockner Housing & Traders Pvt. Ltd. She had volunteered that she was not able to work properly after the accident though there is nothing to show the same. PW1 had stated that she was a Director in the company of her husband but no document has been filed to substantiate the same. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the Income Tax Return which is Ex.PW1/1 for the assessment year 201314 which was filed on 3.8.2013. The same also does not show what the petitioner was doing and what was the source of her income. The same shows the gross total income of the petitioner as Rs. Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 19 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
11,31,133/ on which tax of Rs.1,38,541/ was payable. Even the same does not show the annual income of the petitioner to be Rs.18,00,000/. During examination by the Tribunal the petitioner had stated that she was 50 years old at present. She stated that she was a Director with her husband in a private company and was earning Rs.1,00,000/ to Rs.1,50,000/ per month.
24. The petitioner has also not produced any document to show that she remained on bed rest for any particular period and there is nothing to show that she was advised bed rest for any particular period though she had deposed that it was advised by the doctor to take complete bed rest as the injuries would take long time to recover. There is also no document to show that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident she was unable to work or to show the period for which she was not able to work. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 had denied the suggestion that she had no loss of any income due to the accident but she also stated that she had not filed any advice in writing from the doctor for bed rest. In the absence of any specific advice of the doctor notice can be taken of the fact that the petitioner may not have been able to perform her avocation for some period on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs.1,50,000/ consolidated on account of loss of income.
Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 20 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
25. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner had suffered any disability on account of the injuries. The petitioner has not proved that she acquired any disability on account of the accident or that she is likely to suffer future loss of income on account of the injuries sustained in the accident and that the injuries would reduce her efficiency to work and thereby she would suffer loss of future income. Accordingly the petitioner cannot be held entitled to any amount on account of loss of future prospects.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
Medicines and Medical treatment Rs.38,000/ Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/ Loss of Amenities of life Rs.10,000/ Conveyance Rs.5,000/ Special Diet Rs.5,000/ Attendant charges Rs.9,000/ Loss of Income Rs.1,50,000/ TOTAL Rs.2,42,000/
Thus the total compensation would be Rs.2,42,000/.
RELIEF
26. The petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.2,42,000/ (Rs.Two Lacs Forty Two Thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization including, interim award, if any already passed against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. The Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 21 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the award amount directly in court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft within 30 days of the passing of the award failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay. The petitioner shall file her complete address as well as address of her counsel for sending the notice of deposit of the award amount. APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
27. The respondent No.1 is the driver, the respondent No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Thus the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are held jointly and severally liable. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 i.e. L & T Insurance Co. Ltd. being the insurance company in its reply had admitted that the vehicle bearing No.HR47B7785 (truck) was insured with the respondent No.3 in the name of M/s NKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vide policy No.91510500 1460170000. There is no evidence on behalf of the respondent No.3 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondents No.1 and 2 and in fact the duly verified documents in respect of the offending vehicle were placed on record by the IO with the DAR. Hence, the respondent No.3 being the insurance company in respect of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2. The respondent No.3 being the insurer is directed to deposit the award amount in the court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft within 30 days of the Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 22 of 23 Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.
passing of the award with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
28. Nazir to report in case the cheque is not deposited within 30 days of the passing of the award/judgment. Nazir is directed to note the particulars of the award amount in the register today itself. The respondent No.3 shall deposit the award amount along with interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant with a copy to her counsel and the compliance report shall be filed in the court along with proof of deposit of award amount, the notice of deposit and the calculation of interest on 01.05.2015.
Attested copy of the award be given to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
on this 30th day of January, 2015 (GEETANJLI GOEL)
PO: MACT2
New Delhi
Suit No. 170/14 Page No. 23 of 23
Radha Bansal v Rashid Khan & Ors.