Delhi District Court
Sh. Vipin Kumar S/O Sh. Chand Singh vs Sh. Jawahar Singh S/O Sh Ramphool on 5 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
(WEST): DELHI
Case NO.: 688/08
Unique ID No. 02401C1468962008
Sh. Vipin Kumar s/o Sh. Chand Singh
R/o 46-G, Gali No.2, Main Sagar Pur,
New Delhi
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Jawahar Singh s/o Sh Ramphool
r/o H.No.61, Village Auchandi,
Police Station Narela, New Delhi
......... Respondents
Date of Institution: 29/03/2006 Date of reserving order/judgment: 02/06/2011 Date of pronouncement : 05/07/2011 AWARD
1. This Judgment-cum-Award shall decide the petition under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by petitioner for grant of compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the road vehicular accident.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 17/08/97 while the petitioner was driving three wheeler scooter bearing No. DIR 2934 and while he was coming from Nangal Raya and was going towards Karol Bagh at about 12.30 p.m, the respondent No.1 who was driving Ambassador Car bearing No. DL- ICF- 2234 in rash and negligent manner hit the TSR of the petitioner. Resultantly, the petitioner got injuries. In total, the claimant have claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
Suit No. 688/08 Page 1/53. The written statement was filed by the respondent in which he had mentioned that offending vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. It was found mentioned in the written statement that copy of the said insurance particulars was enclosed. However, since the said insurance particulars was not found to have been enclosed, Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 10/01/07 had provided time to the respondent No.1 to file the insurance particulars. Thereafter, despite repeated adjournments, the respondent No.1 failed to file the insurance particulars. Finally, the respondents were proceeded exparte vide order dated 27/04/07. No issues were framed in this case as respondents were proceeded exparte. However, in order to facilitate the present award, the following issues shall be decided by this Tribunal. ISSUES:
1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road accident on 17/08/97 by the vehicle No. DL-1CF-
2234(Ambassador Car) being driven by R-1 in a rash and negligent manner ?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation,if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. The petitioner examined himself as PW1 .
7. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witness and perused the record. I have also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the insurance company. My findings on various issues are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 18. Since the present petition is under Section 166 of M V Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
9. The petitioner has filed the certified copy of the criminal case on record pertaining to FIR etc. bearing No. 295/97, P.S. Maya PuriU/s 279/338 IPC.
10. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record Suit No. 688/08 Page 2/5 showing the competition 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 on the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of 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 injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed 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. Therefore, reading all the documents filed by the petitioner as a whole it is clear that respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
11. The issue no. 1,therefore, stands in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
COMPENSATION :
12. As per the certified copy of the MLC of the injured, he had got small CLW on right thigh and swelling and tenderness on right knee joint. Beside MLC no further medical documents have been filed by the claimant. It is common knowledge that generally people during the treatment do not maintain the bills etc as they are not aware of this benevolent legislation having provisions for compensation. Keeping in view the overall circumstances, I hereby grant sum of Rs. 2000/- towards medical expenses. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS :
13. It is settled law that a particular amount can not be fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he might have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose Suit No. 688/08 Page 3/5 of anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain v/s Jai Kishan , FAO No: 709/02, date of decision: 2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-
"On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected.
© Duration of the treatment."
14. Keeping in view the said guidelines and keeping in view the aforesaid observation made by this court, I hereby allow Rs. 3,000/- towards pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life. Besides this, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 500/- towards special diet and conveyance.
LOSS OF INCOME
15. Petitioner is stated to be doing private job, but no income proof filed. The medical record & over all circumstances suggest that he could not have earned for 15 days . Accordingly, I award Rs. 4000/- towards loss of income.
The total compensation is assessed as under:-
Treatment expenses: Rs. 2,000/-
Pain and sufferings: Rs. 3,000/-
Special diet and
conveyance : Rs. 500/-
Loss of income: Rs. 4,000/-
_____ ___________
Total: Rs. 9,500/-
RELIEF:
16. I award Rs. 9,500/-(Rupees Nine Thousand Five Hundred Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the petition i.e.,29/03/06 till the notice under Order 21 Rule 1 is given by the insurance company, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent Suit No. 688/08 Page 4/5
17. The respondent being the driver-cum-owner is directed to deposit the award amount within a period of 30 days. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 16/08/2011 to be fixed by insurance company Announced in the open court On 5th of July, 2011 (SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDGE: MACT (WEST):DELHI Suit No. 688/08 Page 5/5 Suit No. 688/08 05/07/11 Present: None.
Judgment announced vide separate sheets of even date. File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 16/08/2011 to be fixed by insurance company.
(SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL) PO: MACT(WEST) : DELHI Suit No. 688/08 Page 6/5