Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(10) In order to prove his case the petitioner Sachin Kumar has examined himself as his sole witness as PW1. (11) I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the record including the DAR and the documents attached along with the same. Coming first to the identity of the respondent no.1 Pawan Gupta as the driver of the offending vehicle, I may note that the respondent no.1 Pawan Gupta did not appear before this Court nor filed any written statement and was therefore, proceeded exparte vide order dated 24.02.2020. In so far as the respondent no.2 HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. is concerned they have not disputed the accident. I may note pursuant to the accident an FIR No. 310/2018 under Section 279/338 IPC was registered at Police Station Kamla Market wherein the respondent no.1 Pawan Gupta, being the driver and owner of the offending car bearing No. DL­5CH­9865, was arrested and then released on bail. Perusal of the record shows that when the Investigating Officer, reached the spot on receiving the information Sachin Vs. Pawan Gupta & Anr., MACT No. 982/2019, Award dated 29.07.2021 Page No. 7 of 26 KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.07.29 17:02:46 regarding accident, the offending car bearing No. DL­5CH­9865 was found at the spot and the respondent no.1 Pawan Gupta was apprehended at the spot itself. Therefore, I hold that the identity of the respondent no.1 Pawan Gupta as the Driver & Owner of Ritz Car bearing No. DL­5CH­9865 stands established. (12) In so far as the aspect of Injuries caused to the petitioner Sachin Kumar, I may note that the photocopy of the MLC of the injured/ petitioner Sachin Kumar has been placed on record along with the DAR which shows that the injured was brought to Lok Nayak Hospital on 27.11.2018 at 2:31 PM with alleged history of RTA followed by fall from height near Kali Mandir. The Discharge Summary of the injured/ petitioner which is Ex.PW1/1 shows that he had suffered comminuted Fracture Humerus (Compound) with Fracture Olecranon right with Fracture Radius Neck Right; Fracture D11, Edema D10 Vertebra, which injuries were opined to be Grievous in Nature. Therefore, it stands established that the petitioner Sachin Kumar had sustained Grievous Injuries in the accident in question. (13) Now coming to the aspect of rashness and negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 Pawan Gupta. I may note that the present case has been registered on the basis of statement of the injured/ petitioner Sachin Kumar who had alleged that on 27.11.2018 at DDU Marg Near Kali Mata Mandir he was repairing bulb of Pole with the help of Boom Lift of Crane bearing No. DL­1M­8885 and in the meantime, the offending car bearing registration No. DL­5CH­9865 Sachin Vs. Pawan Gupta & Anr., MACT No. 982/2019, Award dated 29.07.2021 Page No. 8 of 26 KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.07.29 17:02:55 came which was driven by the respondent no.1 Pawan Gupta in a rash and negligent manner and hit the crane Tower Vegan bearing No. DL­ 1M­8885 due to which the petitioner fell down from the lift and had suffered grievous injuries.

(45)        File be consigned to Record Room.


KAMINI LAU          Date: 2021.07.29 17:04:45



Announced in the open court                                     (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 29.07.2021                                              PO, MACT­01 (Central),
                                                               Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi




Sachin Vs. Pawan Gupta & Anr., MACT No. 982/2019, Award dated 29.07.2021       Page No. 24 of 26
                                          FORM - XVII

his/their financial condition?

 KAMINI LAU             Date: 2021.07.29 17:04:58



                                                        (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
                                                       PO, MACT­01 (Central),
                                                 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 29.07.2021




Sachin Vs. Pawan Gupta & Anr., MACT No. 982/2019, Award dated 29.07.2021             Page No. 26 of 26