Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner and as per the same the nature of injuries was Suit No.D­156/15 opined to be grievous. The documents placed on record also show that the petitioner had sustained fracture of shaft humerus left, fracture olecranon left and fracture proximal tibia. The documents also show that the petitioner remained admitted in hospital. Thus the injuries were grievous in nature. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability due to the accident. During cross­examination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 denied the suggestion that he did not sustain any injuries in any vehicular accident on 15.03.2015 at 4.00 p.m. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs.1,50,000/­ on his medical treatment, Rs. 10,000/­ on conveyance, Rs.20,000/­ on special diet and Rs.18,000/­ on attendant charges. He denied the suggestion that he did not require one more operation for removal of implant and TBW screws from his left hand which required an expenditure of Rs.35,000/­. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW1/5 was a forged, fabricated and a procured document. He denied the suggestion that the treatment record and medical bills Ex.PW1/2 to 4 and Mark A were forged, fabricated and procured documents. He admitted that he had not placed any disability certificate on record. He denied the suggestion that he did not become permanently disabled due to the accident. Thus mainly suggestions were put to PW1 which he denied.

29. It is the case of the petitioner that his motorcycle was badly damaged in the accident. The motorcycle was insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. It was stated that the petitioner had got his motorcycle repaired from M/s Lamba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (15­16) D/E 35, Rama Road Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, Delhi­110015 and he had spent Rs.52,289/­ on its repairs. He had also spent Rs.850/­ on transportation of his motorcycle from PS Delhi Cantt. to M/s Lamba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (15­16) D/E 35, Rama Road Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, Delhi­110015 for conducting repairs. The petitioner had also deposed to that effect. Copy of mechanical inspection report of the motorcycle is Ex.PW1/10, copy of cover note in respect of the motorcycle is Ex.PW1/11 and original bill of repair is Ex.PW1/12. During cross­ examination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 admitted that the insurance of his motorcycle having registration No.DL4SCE6856 expired two days before the accident. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW1/12 which was the final bill for repair of the motorcycle was a forged, fabricated and procured document. He admitted that he had never intimated the insurer of the offending vehicle regarding the damage to his motorcycle volunteered he could not intimate because he was on bed rest. He admitted that no surveyor appointed by IRDA ever surveyed the motorcycle in the Suit No.D­156/15 workshop. He stated that his motorcycle was one year old. It had done about 10,000/­ k.m. He denied the suggestion that he was trying to claim old damages to his motorcycle which were not related to the damages caused due to the accident. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs.850/­ for transportation of his motorcycle. He had paid the bill in cash. He admitted that he had not placed any receipt for the final bill of repair of his motorcycle dated 26.04.2015. He denied the suggestion that the repairs carried out on his motorcycle did not tally with the damages as shown in the mechanical inspection report. He denied the suggestion that he had filed forged and fabricated documents. He denied the suggestion that he had filed an exaggerated claim. Thus PW1 admitted that the insurance of his motorcycle having registration No.DL4SCE6856 expired two days before the accident. No doubt the petitioner should have been careful and got his vehicle insured promptly but on that basis, he cannot be denied the right to claim the amount towards damage to his motorcycle from the respondent No.2. PW1 admitted that he had never intimated the insurer of the offending vehicle regarding the damage to his motorcycle and volunteered that he could not intimate because he was on bed rest. He also admitted that no surveyor appointed by IRDA ever surveyed the motorcycle in the workshop. He admitted that he had not placed any receipt for the final bill of repair of his motorcycle dated 26.04.2015. However the petitioner had also examined the witness from M/s Lamba Enterprises.

LOSS OF INCOME

32. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of the accident he was doing BA Arts course and he was studying in Final Year. Besides studying he was also doing part time job of Bar Tender with M/s Mix N. Serve Company at K­2, 813/1, Ground Floor, Akshat Apartment, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi­110037 and he was earning Rs.10,000/­ to Rs.12,000/­ p.m. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, the petitioner could not resume his work from the date of the accident till date. It was contended that he was unable to do any type of work due to his accidental injuries and permanent disability. The petitioner had also deposed to that effect. Copy of pay slip issued by the employer is Ex.PW1/6 and copies of matriculation and intermediate certificate are collectively Ex.PW1/7. During cross­examination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 admitted that he had not filed any proof to show that he was studying in the final year of B.A. (Arts Course). He stated that he was pursuing the same through correspondence. He denied the suggestion Suit No.D­156/15 that he was not pursuing any such course. He denied the suggestion that he was not doing a part time job of bar tender with M/s Mix and Serve Company and was not earning Rs.10,000/­ to 12,000/­ p.m. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW1/6 was a forged, fabricated and procured document. Thus PW1 admitted that he had not filed any proof to show that he was studying in final year of B.A. (Arts Course). It is pertinent that he stated that he was pursuing the same through correspondence. Further the petitioner had stated about doing a part time job of bartender and he had produced a certificate to that effect from M/s Mix N Serve which is Ex.PW1/6. However the said certificate clearly mentions that the petitioner was working as a bartender on demand basis and as such he did not have a fixed job. During examination by the Tribunal the petitioner stated that he was 25 years old. He stated that he was working as a bartender prior to the accident and he was earning Rs.10,000/­ to Rs.12,000/­. He stated that at present he was not doing anything.