Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Issues

6. Vide order dated 31.08.2018 the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor:-

In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali Digitally signed Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.30 15:48:38 +0530

8. PW1/ Petitioner also testified that he was initially admitted in LNJP Hospital on 14.02.2018, he was treated at Sant Parmanand Hospital from 14.02.2018 to 16.03.2018 and thereafter he remained admitted in Action Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar from 27.03.2018 to 30.03.2018. He has further testified that he was continuously undergoing treatment till date.

9. He further testified that he was working as a Property Dealer earning about ₹50,000/- per month. He also testified that as a result of the accident, he suffered memory loss for some period and was totally dependent on others even for basic needs like MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali by POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. POOJA 2026.01.30 15:48:48 +0530 going to washroom etc. and even today due to brain injury, he is not behaving like before and could not remember all the things. He also testified that he has not been able to resume work for livelihood.

5. Medical Bills including bills Ex.PW-1/5(Colly) summary

11. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 4/ Insurance Company.

Respondents' Evidence

12. Respondent No. 4 / Insurance Company examined only one witness i.e. R3W1 Dr. Vaibhav Patil, Associate Professor, Department of Neuro Psychiatry, AIIMS, New Delhi, who proved the report dated 17.02.2025 i.e. Ex. R3W1/1 as per which the repeat neuro-cognitive assessment and clinical evaluation of the patient indicated memory deficits with intact normal average intelligence. He also testified that the certificate Ex.R3W1/1 was basis for quantification of neuro-psychological disability which is a step further, but, in this case, the quantification had not been undertaken. He also testified that the current report did not MACT No. 343/18 Digitally signed In respect of FIR No.: 54/2018 U/s: 279/338 IPC PS: Kotwali POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Bali Ram Vs. Budh Ratan & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:

24. The act of hitting a vehicle from behind is itself indicative of existence of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle even more so, when the driver/Respondent No.1 did not even appear to set up any defence or to controvert the version of the Petitioner/injured.

25. It is further noted that it is not in dispute that in respect of accident in question, the Respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC in the FIR No. 54/18, under Section 279/338 IPC, PS Kotwali, by the investigating agency after concluding its investigation on the aspect of cause of the accident as well as the identity of the offender and therefore the same also indicates existence of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Respondent No. 1.