Delhi District Court
Sh. Ravinder Singh S/O Late Sh. Jitender ... vs Sh. Narendra Singh S/O Sh. Rame Jaat on 14 May, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF MR.RAJENDER KUMAR
SHASTRI: PO: MACT(NORTH): ROHINI: DELHI
Suit No.353/12
Sh. Ravinder Singh S/o Late Sh. Jitender Singh
R/o A250(Old No. B2/40), Budh Vihar,
Phase1, Delhi.
.... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Narendra Singh S/o Sh. Rame Jaat
R/o Village & Post Bupniya.
2. Sh. Dinesh S/o Sh. Nafe Singh
R/o Village Yakubpur, Distt. Jhajjar
Haryana Pin Code NO. 124101.
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
DO:10, Flat NO. 101106, N1,
BMC House, Connaught Place,
New Delhi.
.....Respondents.
Present: Proxy counsel for petitioner .
Ms. Shalley Advocate for respondent no. 3 i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 01.11.2012 JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 13.05.2015 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14.05.2015 AWARD
1. As per case of petitioner, on 20.04.2011, he alongwith one Mohd. Nasheem, Rashid, Rabanee, Mohd. Sohel Khan was going to Muzafarpur, Bihar from Jhadli Mahatma Gandhi Power 2 Plant, District Jhajjar alongwith a dead body. They were in an Ambulance No. UP12T2250, being driven by him i.e. petitioner on correct side of road and at a normal speed. When they were near Village Khurd, Bahadurgarh (Haryana), a vehicle (TATA
407) bearing no. HR476332 driven by respondent no. 1( Narender Singh) at a very high speed, rashly and negligently came there from opposite side and hit their ambulance. As a result of which, they fell down on road. He i.e. petitioner suffered grievous injuries all over his body. All of injured were taken to General Hospital, Bahadurgarh, (Haryana), from where, he was referred to Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar and remained hospitalised from 21.04.2011 to 24.04.2011.
2. Contending that said accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1, offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no. 3 ( National Insurance Company Ltd.), petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs alongwith interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of accident till realisation of amount.
3. Respondent no. 3 contested the claim. According to it, same was not liable to pay any compensation as driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. He was disqualified from holding /obtaining any driving licence on that day.
4. Neither respondent no. 1 nor respondent no. 2 filed 3 any written statement.
5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed on 13.02.2015:
1. Whether respondent no. 3 (National Insurance Co. Ltd.) is not liable to pay any compensation in terms of policy?OPR
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for? OPP
3. Relief.
6. In order to prove his case, petitioner examined himself as PW1. None from respondents opted to lead any evidence.
7. I have heard, ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents. My findings issuewise are as under: ISSUE NO. 1
8. Petitioner Ravinder Singh in his affidavit filed in evidence (Ex.PW1/A) reiterated facts of his case, as described above. According to him, he was driving Ambulance no. UP12T2250 at a normal speed and on correct side of road, respondent no. 1 hit his ambulance while driving TATA 407 no. HR476332 at a very high speed rashly and negligently. He suffered grievous injuries i.e. SIDE SWEEP INJURY RIGHT ELBOW WITH EXPOSED BONE WITH INTER CONDYLAR FRACTURE RIGHT HUMERUS alongwith some other injuries. He was immediately take to General Hospital, Bahadurgarh,Haryana, where MLC was prepared. He was referred 4 to Action Medical Institute and remained hospitalised from 21.04.11 to 24.04.11.
9. None from respondents opted to crossexamination petitioner i.e. PW1. Respondents no. 1 or 2 did not file any written statement/reply even. The petitioner being an injured is a natural eye witness of accident. I have no reason to disbelieve his testimony. According to respondent no. 3, same was not liable to pay any compensation as driver of offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence at the time of accident. Needless to say that onus to prove this issue was on the respondents and no evidence is led in this regard. It is not denied by respondent no. 3 that offending vehicle was duly insured with it. From all this, it is respondent no. 3 who is liable to pay compensation. However, same may claim reimburse / recovery from other respondents, if permissible by law. This issue is decided against respondent no. 3 and in favour of petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2:
10. As discussed above, it is well established that accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. It is not denied that offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3, petitioner is well within his rights to claim compensation.
11. According to petitioner, he was earning Rs. 10,000/ as salary, having been employed as driver with M/s A.S. 5 Ambulance Help Line, Sector3, Rohini. Although, there is no evidence except deposition of petitioner (PW1) to prove that he was employed as a driver with M/s A.S. Ambulance Help Line. I have no reason to disbelieve petitioner saying that he was employed as driver with M/s A.S. Ambulance Help Line, Sector3, Rohini. Trite it to say that according to his case, petitioner was carrying a dead body to Muzafarpur,Bihar while driving an Ambulance. Even if, there is no evidence to corroborate the deposition of petitioner that he was earning Rs. 10,000/ per month. Same was a driver, employed with M/s A.S. Ambulance Help Line, Sector3, Rohini. Being trained driver, he can be presumed to be a skilled labourer. Minimum wages of a skill labourer were Rs.7,826/ at the time, when accident in question took place. According to ld. Counsel for petitioner, the latter could not earn anything for one year due to injuries suffered by him, in this accident. The petitioner is thus allowed Rs. 7,826x12 i.e. Rs. 93,912/ for loss of income during period of treatment.
12. Petitioner claims to have spent Rs. 1,60,759/16p. on medicines. Medical bills are put on file. Apart from all this, according to petitioner, he spent Rs. 15,000/ on special diet and Rs. 15,000/ on conveyance. Seeing the injuries having been suffered by petitioner, this amount does not appear unreasonable. Same is also allowed to him.
13. Apart from aforesaid amounts, petitioner is granted a 6 sum of Rs. 1 lakh for pain and suffering and Rs.2 lakhs for loss of enjoyments of life, making a total of Rs. 5,84,671/, detail of which is given as under:
1. Loss of income during treatment Rs. 93,912/
2. Medical bills Rs. 1,60,759/
3. Special diet Rs. 15,000/
4. Conveyance charges Rs. 15,000/
5. Pain & suffering Rs. 1,00,000/
6. Loss of enjoyments of life Rs. 2,00.000/ Total compensation Rs. 5,84,671/ Issue no. 2 is thus decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
14. Petition in hands is allowed. Respondents no. 3 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,84,671/ to the petitioner as compensation within 30 days from today alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till realisation of amount. 50% of this amount to be invested in fixed deposits for a period of 2 years, with any nationalised bank.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI) Court on 14.05.2015 PO,MACT NORTH,ROHINI, DELHI 7 Suit NO. 353/12 14.05.2015:
Present: Proxy counsel for petitioner .
Ms. Shalley Advocate for respondent no. 3 i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vide separate Judgment, dictated and announced in open court today, petition is disposed of .
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of this order/judgment be given dasti to the parties, free of costs.
PO,MACT1 (N),ROHINI, DELHI/14.05.2015