Delhi District Court
Sh. Mala Ram vs Sh. Sarabjit Singh on 22 July, 2023
IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. GAGANDEEP JINDAL,
==============================================
UID No. / CNR No. DLNW01-009224-2019 MACT CASE No. 582/2019 FIR No. 175/19, PS Begum Pur In the matter of :
1. Sh. Mala Ram S/o Sh. Arjun R/o H.No.C-37, Jain Colony, Barwala, Delhi.
.....Petitioners Vs.
1. Sh. Sarabjit Singh S/o Sh. Santokh Singh R/o H.No.141, Ward No.25, Village-Bharaiwal, District Amritsar, Punjab ....Driver/R1
2. New Janta TPT Cargo Movers, WZ-8, Bhagwan Dass Nagar Extn.
Main Rohtak Road, Delhi (owner Sh. Tarsem Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Bawa Ram Sharma R/o H.No.A-4/216, Janta Flats, Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
....Owner/R2
3. Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., ....Insurer/R3 Date of institution of the DAR : 26.09.2019 Date of final Arguments : 10.07.2023 Date of Decision : 22.07.2023 MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 18 Appearance (s) : Sh. Mehtab Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Sh. N. K. Singh, Ld. counsel for R1 and R2.
Sh. S. K. Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for R3 J U D G M E NT /AWAR D
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the Detailed Accidental Report (in short, the DAR) filed by the IO.
FACTULAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present DAR petition are that on 10.05.2019, the petitioner alongwith his friend namely Manoj Kumar Thakur was driving scooty bearing no.DL- 8SBM-2279 (in short, the said vehicle) was going to Begumpur, Delhi and I was sitting at the pillion seat and the said scooty was being driven by the Manoj Kumar Thakur at a normal speed, on correct side of road with proper look out and with obey all traffic rules. On the said date at about 08:00 am, when Manoj Kumar Thakur reached at Ram Chowk, Heliport Road, Begum Pur, Delhi, a tempo bearing registration no.DL-1LAC-1570 (in short, the offending vehicle) driven by respondent no.1/driver at a high speed, rash and negligently, without blowing any horn and hit the abovesaid scooty from left side, I fell down on the road. After the accident, I was taken to the BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi where his MLC No.6361/19 was prepared by doctors and thereafter, the petitioner was discharged on the same date.
3. It is stated that the petitioner was having no improvement in his injuries was referred to Avantika Multi Speciality Hospital, MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 18 Rohini, Delhi for better medical treatment where the surgery was performed and the petitioner was discharge on 14.05.2019, thereafter, the petitioner went for medical treatment in Maharishi Valmiki Hospital, Pooth Khurd, Delhi on 22.05.2019 in OPD Department and took the medicine and also doctors plaster his leg, thereafter the petitioner was again went to above said hospital on 04.06.2019 for remove his leg plaster and after that the doctor of the said hospital gave the one and half months bed rest for recovery, thereafter, the petitioner again went in the Avantika Hospital, Rohini, Delhi on 08.07.2019 in OPD. Thereafter, the petitione sustained permanent disbility as the petitioner cannot move without escort. The petitioner at the time of accident, had lost his cash money sum of Rs.6,000/, MI Mobile IMEI No.867159039701178, mobile no.9990907666, amount of mobile phone is around sum of Rs.6,000/. It is stated that the same facts was not mentioned in the FIR. It is stated that FIR bearing No.1253973/2019 of PS Crime Branch, u/s 279/338 IPC was registered in PS Begumpur in this regard.
4. It is stated that petitioner has suffered following injuries: wound head stitch, left eyes, abrasion on the bank and left leg fracture and other multiple injuries on all parts of his body as per the MLC report.
5. It is stated that petitioner have incurred sum of Rs.1,42,743/ on medical treatment, Rs.80,000/ on special diet, MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 18 Rs.45,000/ on conveyance, Rs.35,000/ on attendant charges. It is stated that petitioner at the time of accident, was 42 years old and was possessing sound mind, health and robust physique and at the time of accident the petitioner was doing transport business and selling the milk in his own village and he is the sole earning member of his family and was earning Rs.35,000/ per month but due to sustained injuries, the petitioner have become permanently disabled as he cannot move properly without escort and his life is no more as the same as it used to be earlier and he has suffered as lot of financial loss apart from physical and mental pain and agony. It is stated that the petitioner cannot resume his work. It is stated that the petitioner has completed his education from Government Sr. Hr. Sec. School Bansar in 1991 from Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan.
6. After obtaining the copy of DAR, written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 and, it is, inter alia, submitted that the respondent no.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle and the respondent no.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. The alleged accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of petitioner himself and extort the money from the answering respondents. It is stated that the vehicle was fully insured and covered under the insurance vide policy No.3379/02311887/000/00 valid from 05.03.2019 to 04.03.2020.
7. Legal offer has been filed on behalf of respondent 33/insurance Co.
MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 18 ISSUES:
8. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 14.02.2020: -
1. Whether petitioner Sh. Mala Ram S/o Sh. Arjun expired due to injuries suffered in a road traffic accident on dt. 10.05.2019 at about 8:00 AM at Ram Chowk, Rithala Bawana Road, Near Hali-Port, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending tractor bearing no. DL-1LAC-1570 which was being driven by driver namely Sh. Sarabjit Singh S/o Sh. Santokh Singh on the said date, time and place ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
9. Thereafter, matter was listed for recording of petitioner's evidence before Ld. Local Commissioner. In order to prove its case, petitioner no.1 Mala Ram has been examined as PW1, who has deposed in terms of her affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A and has relied on following documents:
1. Copy of Adhaar Card of depondent is Ex.PW-1/1 (OSR).
2. The online e-FIR Ex.PW-1/2.
3. The original medical bills and medical treatment records Ex.PW-1/3 (colly).
4. Photographs are Ex.PW-1/4.
5. Certificated of the secondary school examination, ID cards are Ex.PW-1/5 (colly).
6. DAR is Ex.PW-1/6 (colly).
MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 18
10. In cross-examination, PW1 testified that he has filed the medical bills of Rs.42,743/-. He testified that he has not filed any document to show that he has incurred Rs.80,000/- on special diet, Rs.45,000/- on conveyance and Rs.35,000/- on attendant charges. He testified that he has not filed any document to show he was earning of Rs.35,000/- per month. He denied that he was not earning Rs.35,000/- per month. He denied that he was income tax payee. He testified that he was under treatment upto 04.06.2019 as mention in para no.3 of his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. He testified that he has not filed any document of his treatment from 05.06.2019 tp 17.09.2021. He testified that he has not impleaded as party in petition driver, owner and insurance company of the scooty bearing no.DL-8SBM- 2279. He testified that he was travelling as pillion rider on abovesaid scooty. He testified that Manoj Kumar was driving the scooty at normal speed. He testified that there is no red light signal at the place of accident. He denied that the tempo bearing no.DL- 1LAC-1570 was coming from Rithala on lane. He testified that the abovesaid tempo was not in his own lane. He testified that the road which was going towards helipad is a double road having divider. He testified that he told the IO about the incident place and on the instance of his statement the concerned IO prepared site plan of the accident. He testified that police officials recorded his statement on 12/13.05.2019 in the hospital. He denied that the site plan was not prepared at his instance. He testified that he told the IO that his mobile phone and Rs.6,000/- was lost in the accident. At this stage, u/s 166 Cr.PC statement shown to the witness, he admitted that he MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 18 did not mention about the lost mobile phone and money. He testified that he had told to IO about the abovefact but he did not mentioned in the statement. He denied that the abovesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Manoj Kumar. He denied that Manoj Kumar was crossing the road without obeying the traffic rules and without having any driving license. He denied that they were not wearing helmet/heargear at the time of accident. He denied that the respondent no.1 was driving his tempo at normal speed and correct side of the road. He testified that he has no objection of the DAR Ex.PW-1/6 and he relied upon the documents of the DAR. He denied that Manoj Kumar was wrongly crossing the road.
11. Thereafter, petitioner's evidence was closed and matter was listed for respondent's evidence.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:
12. Respondents has not lead any evidence in the matter. Thereafter, evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
13. I have heard ld. Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the testimony of P W 1 including the pleadings and the documents. I have also gone through the statement of petitioner recorded under Clause 26 of MCTAP. My issue wise findings in the case are as under : MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 18 ISSUE NO.1
14. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
15. In order to prove this issue, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1. He deposed that on 10.05.2019, he alongwith his friend Manoj Thakur were going to Begumpur on scooty. PW-1 was the pillion rider and Manoj Thakur was driving the scooty. When they reached at Ram Chowk, Helipat Road, Begumpur, the offending vehicle which was being driven by respondent no.1 at a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner hit their scooty MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 18 and due to that impact, PW-1 and driver Manoj Thakur fell down on the road. PW-1 sustained griveous injuries and was taken to BSA Hospital, Rohini,Delhi where MLC of PW-1 bearing No.6361/19 was prepared by the doctor. The testimony of PW1 against the respondent no.1 is corroborated by the documentary evidence that respondent no.1 was present at the spot and driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the case does not warrant any other best evidence. Keeping in view the facts & evidence produced by the petitioner, it has proved on record that the said accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent no.1, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained injuries.
16. The FIR has been lodged against the respondent no.1 and he has faced criminal charges of causing injuries by rash and negligent driving in the said accident.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is clearly visible and as such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 218. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 18 compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
19. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary damages. The pecuniary damages or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The non- pecuniary or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non-pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 18 compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
20. In light of the above legal prepositions, the amount of compensation which could be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
Medical or Treatment Expenses:
21. Petitioner has deposed after the accident, he was taken to BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi where his MLC bearing no.6361/19 was prepared. He was discharged on the same date. He further deposed that having no improvement in his injuries, he was referred to Avantika Multi Speciality Hospital, Rohini, Delhi where he remained admitted and discharged on 14.05.2019. Thereafter, he went for treatment in Maharishi Valmiki Hospital, Pooth Khurd, MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 18 Delhi on 22.05.2019 where doctor plastered his leg which was removed on 04.06.2019. PW-1 has relied upon his medical documents which is Ex.PW-1/3 (colly).
22. In the MLC no.6361/19 prepared at Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, the swelling was found and he was advised x-ray of mid shaft fibula (left). No x-ray report has been placed on record. PW-1 the petitioner got admitted in Avantika Multi Specialty Hospital, Rohini on 10.05.2019 and was discharged on 14.05.2019. In the medical documents prepared in Maharishi Valmiki Hospital, it is mentioned, "elsewhere managed case of u/3 VD fibula left 12 days only." The petitioner has relied upon his medical documents Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly) and claimed Rs.1,42,743/- as medical expenses. As per final bills of Avantika Multi Specialty Hospital, the petitioner paid Rs.25,000/- as medical expenses, incurred Rs.15,000/- approx. on medicines and investigation of his injuries. Keeping in view the nature of injury, the petitioner is granted a nominal sum of Rs. 50,000/ under this head.
Pain and Suffering
23. As per MLC, which is a part of DAR Ex. PW1/6, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the above accident. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 18 manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs. 10,000/ is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 10,000/ under this head.
Loss of actual earnings:
24. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims that at the relevant time, he was running business of milk diary and was doing transport business. He was earning Rs. 35,000/ per month. He deposed that he remained bedridden for a long period, thereby losing his income for the said period. However, there is nothing on record to corroborate the claim of the petitioner. As per medical documents of the Avantika Multi Specialty Hospital and testimony of petitioner, petitioner could not move for two months for the plaster on his legs. In the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to assume that the petitioner was unable to resume his work/ vocation for a period of two months after the accident. In the absence of any evidence as to the vocation or monthly earnings of the petitioner, it would be appropriate that the monthly income of petitioner be assessed as per the minimum wages payable to a unskilled person in Delhi as on the date of accident. As per relevant notification, the minimum wages admissible to a unskilled person as on 10.05.2019 in Delhi were Rs.14,468/. As such, the petitioner is MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 18 held entitled to a sum of Rs. Rs. 28,936/ (Rs. 14,468/ x2). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Conveyance and Special Diet
25. Petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 80,000/ for special diet, Rs.45,000/ for conveyance and Rs. 35,000/ for attendant charges. However, he failed to place on record any corroborative material in this regard. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by him, a sum of Rs. 10,000/ is awarded to the petitioner cumulatively under these heads.
Issue No.3/Relief:
26. The petitioner is held entitled to recover an amount of Rs.98,936/- (Rupees Ninety Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Six Only) (Rs. 50,000/+10,000/+28,936/+10,000/) only along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e 26.09.2019. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
LIABILITY:
29. On the point of liability, an objection has been raised by R-3/ Insurance Company. Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company has submitted that the petitioner was driving the scooty without having any valid driving license. It is accordingly argued by Ld. MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 18 Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company that since petitioner was driving the scooty without any valid driving licence, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
30. In the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surender Singh & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 436, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court of India follows: "if the person drives a vehicle without the license, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any license but no finding of fact has been arrived that he was driving the two wheeler rashly and negligenly. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we failed to see as to how, only because he was not having a license he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence."
31. In this case also, It has been held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. There is no evidence on record that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot held liable for contributory negligence mere because he was not having license to driver the scooty.
MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 18
32. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the Award amount in the SBI, Rohini Court Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which he shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay.
RELEASE
27. On 05.06.2023, statement of petitioner qua financial needs and requirements was recorded in terms of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 32 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Photocopy of the passbook of the bank account of the petitioner maintained with Bank of India, Branch : Budhpur, Bijapur, Delhi was also placed on record at that time. Photocopies of Aadhar Card and PAN Card were also placed on record by the petitioner, apart from two coloured photographs of the petitioner.
28. Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 98,936/- (Rupees Ninety Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Six Only) and the said amount is directed to be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No.28670110055243 IFSC Code- UCBA0002867 maintained with UCO Bank, Branch - Prahladpur Bangar Branch, Delhi (PAN No. AWJPR5274L), which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner.
33. Copy of the award be given to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 16 of 18 Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions mentioned at serial no.41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
34. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Rohini District Courts for information.
35. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'be High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
36. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
37. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 22.08.2023.
MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19) Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 17 of 18 File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON 22th DAY OF July, 2023 Digitally signed
GAGANDEEP by GAGANDEEP
JINDAL
JINDAL Date: 2023.07.22
15:42:43 +0530
(GAGANDEEP JINDAL)
ADJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT Case No.582/2019 (FIR no. 175/19)
Mala Ram v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors.
Page no. 18 of 18