IN THE COURT OF MS. [ENTITY], PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL2, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI Suit No.310/14 Date of Institution: 24.08.2013 IN THE MATTER OF: Shri [ENTITY] S/o Shri Ram Jag Yadav R/o H.No. A207, Swaroop Nagar Delhi. Petitioner Versus 1. Shri [ENTITY] S/o Shri Bharat Paswan R/o Village Kauvakol Dhamani P.O. Madarapur Distt. Nawada Bihar. 2. Shri [ENTITY] S/o Shri Bhola Shaw R/o F29, BlockF Vishwakarma Colony Lal Kuan, Badarpur New Delhi. 3. [ENTITY] Corp. Office: E8, EPIP RIICO Industrial Area Sitapur, Jaipur Rajasthan. Respondents
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 1 of 30 Final Arguments heard : 31.01.2015 Award reserved for : 28.02.2015 Date of Award : 28.02.2015 AWARD
1. Vide this judgmentcumaward, I proceed to decide the petition filed u/[SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT], as amended uptodate (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of compensation in a road accident.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 01.04.2013 at about 4.00 a.m. in the morning, the petitioner was on way to Tapukara, Near Gurgaon to join his duty by his Motorcycle bearing No.DL8SAZ7776 and he was driving his motorcycle in moderate speed and was in his lane and just after crossing the subway, Ring Road, Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi one Truck bearing No.HR38M9287 driven by the respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and also in high speed, came after crossing the divider and knocked the petitioner dangerously, resultantly the petitioner turned down on the road with his motorcycle and sustained multiple fractures and injuries upon his hip, thigh and knee and other parts of the body and the motorcycle of the claimant was also damaged badly. After the accident the petitioner was admitted in AIIMS, Trauma Centre by the police official and he got his treatment there. It is averred that the case was registered vide FIR No.103/13 at PS Delhi Cantt., u/[SECTION] [ACT].
[ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 2 of 30
3. It is averred that the petitioner was a young and good personality of only 26 years of age at the time of the accident and was having good health and physique and he was working as an Assistant Executive with Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. at plot No.SPL2(D), 2(E), 2(F) and 2(G), Tapukara Industrial Area, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan and was getting a monthly salary of around Rs.45,000/ but due to the accident he was bed ridden for long. It is averred that due to the accident the petitioner lost his income and future prospects of his life as the injuries had made the petitioner a permanently handicapped person and in future also he would be unable to do hard labour. The petitioner was an ITI Degree holder and had good scope and chances to scale the ladder of his career upto the last but now such imagination had only become a dream for the petitioner. It is averred that the accident had caused a great loss in his life and earning and his ability of working was also slashed down. It is averred that the job profile of the petitioner required physical involvement but the accident made him physically weak and now he was not so energetic to work hard. It is averred that the petitioner was having many plans in his life but the accident left him nowhere. It is averred that the petitioner had incurred a heavy amount upon his treatment. The accident had made him completely confined to bed for a long period. It is averred that the treatment of the petitioner is highly expensive and the petitioner is also continuously expensing upon his special diet and on an attendant, who is employed by the petitioner to look after him. It is averred that the respondent No.1 is entirely responsible for the accident and is therefore [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 3 of 30 liable to pay the compensation. It is averred that the respondents No.2 and 3 are vicariously liable to pay the compensation, being the owner of the offending vehicle. It is prayed that an amount of Rs.6,00,000/ be awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
4. Legal offer was filed on behalf of the respondent No.3/insurance company stating that from the documents it was made out that one Mr. [ENTITY], the driver was driving the trailer bearing registration No.HR38M9287 and the offending vehicle was owned by Mr. [ENTITY]. The driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective driving license to drive the type of vehicle that he was driving. It had been confirmed by the insurer that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the insurance company vide policy [CASE NUMBER] in the name of Mr. [ENTITY] and the same was valid and effective as on the date of accident i.e. on 01.04.2013. It is averred that the Remuneration Details of Mr. [ENTITY] suggested that he was squarely covered under the company's Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy and would be entitled to medical benefits/ reimbursement of the medical expenses, medical leave etc. It is averred that the documents reveal that Mr. [ENTITY] had received reimbursement of medical expenses for the hospitalization and treatment undergone at M/s Parnami Orthopaedic Hospital & Joint Replacement Centre, Delhi from M/s Cholamandalam Co. vide policy ID No.2605993 & CC No.2217374. An offer of Rs.30,000/ plus the medical expenses as per actual bills was made. [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 4 of 30
5. Initially Detailed Accident Report was filed by the IO on 2.7.2013 and thereafter the claim petition was filed on 24.8.2013. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 18.7.2014:
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 01.04.2013 at about 4.00 a.m. at Near Subway, Dhaula Kuan, Ring Road, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR38M9287 driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. The petitioner appeared in the witness box as PW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. He stated that he sustained fracture injuries in his right leg, hip and right knee and also sustained injuries upon other parts of the body and after the accident he was hospitalized in AIIMS Trauma Centre and Hospital, New Delhi where he got first aid treatment and then he was suggested to shift in another hospital as bed was not available and he got his fractured leg operated at Parnami Orthopaedic Hospital and Joint Replacement Centre, A15, Panchavati, OPP. Azadpur Mandi Bus Stand, [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 5 of 30 Delhi. He stated that due to the accident he was bed ridden for around five months from the date of the accident as he sustained fracture in his right leg and hip region and also multiple injuries on the other parts of the body. He stated that he was the only bread earner of his family. Due to the said accident, he lost his income and future prospects of his life. He stated that the accident caused a great loss in his life and earning. His ability of working was also slashed down as he was not having strength. Due to the accident, he was absent from his duty for around five months. He stated that due to injuries sustained in the accident, he became a disabled person and the same was slashing down his working ability as well as his day to day life had become abnormal. He stated that he was still suffering hard life since the day of accident and the same would continue for long. Since, the day of accident he had difficulties in moving, climbing the stairs. He stated that due to the accident, his family suffered a lot as he was bedridden for a long period and incurred heavy amount on his treatment, travel, special diet and attendants and also became unemployed. He stated that he had suffered a lot of physical as well as mental pain and agony, he had also lost his future prospective income as after the accident, he was not as energetic as he was previously. He stated that his working ability/capability was also slashed down as he would not get his previous strength and health again as previously he was having a good health and physique. He stated that the accident had made him permanently weak and disabled as his injured parts of the body were not working properly till date and as per his condition it would cause problem the [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 6 of 30 whole life. He stated that the injuries sustained by him in the accident were affecting his career as now employer was not appreciating his working ability and also was not ready and willing to promote him or give increment in salary. Copy of DL of the petitioner is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR), copy of treatment record of AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi is Ex.PW1/2, copy of discharge summary of Parnami Hospital at Azadpur, Delhi is Mark A and original of the same was submitted to insurance company. Medical bills of purchased medicines are Ex.PW1/3 (colly), estimate dated 31.7.2013 given by the hospital for removal of the steel rod fixed to his fractured leg is Ex.PW1/4, the medical certificate issued by the hospital regarding his bed rest, advising bed rest from 01.04.2013 to 31.07.2013 is Ex.PW1/5 (colly), appointment letter given by his employer at the time joining his office is Ex.PW1/6 (colly), and the DAR is Ex.PW1/7.
7. Shri [ENTITY], Executive Industrial Relation, Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. was produced in the witness box as PW2 and he had brought the records of the injured Shri [ENTITY] who was working in the company as Assistant Executive at the time of the accident and at present he was posted as Executive in their company after being promoted. He stated that he was duly authorized by the company to depose before the Court and the authority letter issued by the company is Ex.PW2/1. Copy of leave record of the injured is Ex.PW2/2. He stated that due to the accident he was on leave from 01.07.2013 to 31.07.2013. He stated that the injured did not [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 7 of 30 get salary of total 73 days out of the sanctioned leave. The salary certificate for the months of June, 2013 and July, 2013 were not generated and he did not get the salary for the same period. He had also brought the salary record of the injured and the same is Ex.PW2/3 (colly). PE was closed on 29.10.2014. It was stated by the learned counsel for the insurance company that no RE was to be led and RE was closed on 18.11.2014.
8. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 and perused the record. The petitioner was also examined on 31.1.2015 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court on 11.1.2013 in [PRECEDENT].
9. My findings on the specific issues are as under:
10. As the petition has been filed U/[SECTION] [ACT] it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that he sustained injuries in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle it has been held in [PRECEDENT] as follows:
[ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 8 of 30 "The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents/claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] (supra). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of offending vehicle (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under [SECTION], [ACT] against the driver;
(iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of deceased.
These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the [ACT] are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on part of the driver."
It is established law that in a claim petition under [ACT], the standard of proof to establish rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle is not at par with the criminal case where such rashness and negligence is required to be proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. In [PRECEDENT], it was inter alia held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 9 of 30 involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injury or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
11. The case of the petitioner is that on 01.04.2013 at about 4.00 a.m. in the morning, the petitioner was on way to Tapukara, Near Gurgaon to join his duty by his Motorcycle bearing No.DL8SAZ7776 and he was driving his motorcycle in moderate speed and was in his lane and just after crossing the subway, Ring Road, Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi one Truck bearing No.HR38M9287 driven by the respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and also in high speed, came after crossing the divider and knocked the petitioner dangerously, resultantly the petitioner turned down on the road with his motorcycle and sustained multiple fractures and injuries upon his hip, thigh and knee and other parts of the body and the motorcycle of the claimant was also damaged badly. After the accident the petitioner was admitted in AIIMS, Trauma Centre by the police official and he got his treatment there. It was averred that the case was registered vide FIR No.103/13 at PS Delhi Cantt., u/[SECTION] [ACT]. In paras 2 and 4 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A the petitioner had reiterated the mode and manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition.
12. The IO had filed Detailed Accident Report containing the criminal record consisting of copy of charge sheet; copy of tehrir, copy of FIR; copy of site plan; copy of MLC, copy of seizure memos; copy of DD, copy of arrest memo [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 10 of 30 and personal search memo, copy of mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle and of the motorcycle No.DL8SAZ7776, copy of notice under [SECTION] [ACT], copy of verification report of the RC of the offending vehicle with the copy of RC, copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle and its verification report, copy of permit with the verification report, copy of fitness certificate with the verification report, copy of the DL of the respondent No.1 with the verification report, copy of order on application for release of the offending vehicle and the motorcycle on superdari along with copy of the superdarinama and copies of medical documents. As per the FIR No.103/13 under [SECTION] [ACT], PS Delhi Cantt the case was registered on the basis of complaint of the petitioner [ENTITY] wherein he had stated about the manner of the accident. As per the charge sheet the respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under [SECTION] [ACT].
13. The respondent No.1 who is the driver and the respondent No.2 who is the owner of the alleged offending vehicle had not filed the reply nor did they appear to crossexamine PW1. PW1 was not crossexamined regarding the manner of the accident. The respondent No.1 who is the driver and the respondent No.2 who is the owner of the offending vehicle have not adduced any evidence to dispute the version put forth by the petitioner or in the criminal record. The criminal record has been placed on record which shows that the respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under Sections [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 11 of 30 279/338 [ACT]. In [PRECEDENT] it was observed that registration of criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle was enough to record a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident. The respondents No.1 and 2 have also not led any evidence to prove any other version of the accident. There is no evidence from the respondents to disprove the particulars of the accident or the involvement of vehicle No.HR38M9287. In view of the testimony of PW1 and the documents on record which have remained unrebutted, the negligence of the respondent No.1 has been prima facie proved.
14. It was stated that due to the hit by the offending vehicle the petitioner fell down on the road with his motorcycle and sustained multiple fractures and injuries upon his hip, thigh and knee and other parts of the body. After the accident the petitioner was admitted in AIIMS, Trauma Centre by the police official and he got his treatment there. The MLC of the petitioner is on record as per which the nature of injuries was opined to be grievous. Thus it stands established that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the alleged accident. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
[ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 12 of 30 Issue No.2
15. Since issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the petitioner he would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Act. The law is well settled that the compensation has to be awarded in personal injury cases under the following heads: (1) for loss of earnings during the period of treatment (2) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (3) expenses suffered by him on his treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food etc. In addition, he is further entitled to non pecuniary damages/general damages which include (1) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries and (2) loss of expectation of life.
MEDICINES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT
16. The case of the petitioner is that due to the hit by the offending vehicle on 1.4.2013 the petitioner fell down on the road with his motorcycle and sustained multiple fractures and injuries upon his hip, thigh and knee and other parts of the body. After the accident the petitioner was admitted in AIIMS, Trauma Centre by the police official and he got his treatment there. It was averred that due to the accident he was bed ridden for long. It was averred that due to the accident the petitioner lost his income and future prospects of his life as the injuries had made the petitioner a permanently [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 13 of 30 handicapped person and in future also he would be unable to do hard labour. It was averred that the accident had caused a great loss in his life and earning and his ability of working was also slashed down and the accident made him physically weak and now he was not so energetic to work hard. It was averred that the petitioner was having many plans in his life but the accident left him nowhere. It was averred that the petitioner had incurred a heavy amount upon his treatment. The accident had made him completely confined to bed for a long period. It was averred that the treatment of the petitioner was highly expensive and the petitioner was also continuously expensing upon his special diet and on an attendant, who was employed by the petitioner to look after him.
17. The petitioner in paras 2 to 5 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. He stated that he sustained fracture injuries in his right leg, hip and right knee and also sustained injuries upon other parts of the body and after the accident he was hospitalized in AIIMS Trauma Centre and Hospital, New Delhi where he got first aid treatment and then he was suggested to shift to another hospital as bed was not available and he got his fractured leg operated at Parnami Orthopaedic Hospital and Joint Replacement Centre, A15, Panchavati, OPP. Azadpur Mandi Bus Stand, Delhi. He stated that due to the accident he was bed ridden for around five months from the date of the accident as he sustained fracture in his right leg and hip region and also multiple injuries on the other parts of the body. Due to the said accident, he [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 14 of 30 lost his income and future prospects of his life. He stated that the accident caused a great loss in his life and earning. His ability of working was also slashed down as he was not having strength. He stated that due to injuries sustained in the accident, he became a disabled person and the same was slashing down his working ability as well as his day to day life had become abnormal. He stated that he was still suffering hard life since the day of accident and the same would continue for long. Since, the day of accident he had difficulties in moving, climbing the stairs. He stated that due to the accident, his family suffered a lot as he was bedridden for a long period and incurred heavy amount on his treatment, travel, special diet and attendants and also became unemployed. He stated that he had suffered a lot of physical as well as mental pain and agony, he had also lost his future prospective income as after the accident, he was not as energetic as he was previously. He stated that his working ability/capability was also slashed down as he would not get his previous strength and health again as previously he was having a good health and physique. He stated that the accident had made him permanently weak and disabled as his injured parts of the body were not working properly till date and as per his condition it would cause problem the whole life. Copy of treatment record of AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi is Ex.PW1/2, copy of discharge summary of Parnami Hospital at Azadpur, Delhi is Mark A and original of the same was submitted to insurance company. Medical bills of purchased medicines are Ex.PW1/3 (colly), estimate dated 31.7.2013 given by the hospital for removal of the steel rod fixed to his fractured [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 15 of 30 leg is Ex.PW1/4 and the medical certificate issued by the hospital regarding his bed rest, advising bed rest from 01.04.2013 to 31.07.2013 is Ex.PW1/5 (colly).
18. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the nature of injuries was opined to be grievous. The documents placed on record show that he had sustained fracture of shaft of femur right and further he remained admitted in hospital from 1.4.2013 to 10.4.2013. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had sustained any disability in the accident. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 stated that the accident took place on 1st April, 2013 near Dhaula Kuan. Initially he was admitted to AIIMS Trauma Centre and thereafter, was shifted to Parnami Hospital, Azad Pur. He stated that he had got his medical insurance policy issued by his employer and under the said policy he got his medical reimbursement from the insurance company. He stated that his medical insurance claim was already paid under the Group Personal Accident Policy and for the remaining amount he was claiming under the present claim petition from Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Thus PW1 stated that he had got his medical insurance policy issued by his employer and under the said policy he got his medical reimbursement from the insurance company. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW2 stated that the employees of their company were covered under the Companies [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 16 of 30 Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy. He stated that the employees of the company received their medical and hospitalization insurance claim from M/s Chola Mandalam Insurance Company directly in the hospital. He stated that the company paid Rs.15,000/ medical reimbursement to Mr. [ENTITY] per annum. Thus PW2 stated that the employees of their company were covered under the Companies Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy and that the company paid Rs.15,000/ medical reimbursement to Mr. [ENTITY] per annum. As such PW2 had also stated about the petitioner being covered under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner had sustained injuries and underwent treatment for the same. The petitioner had filed bills for an amount of Rs.10,996/ approximately apart from the bills which were stated to have been reimbursed. 2 Advance Receipts for an amount of Rs.20,000/ were also placed on record by the petitioner but it is seen that the bill of Parnami Hospital was reimbursed by the Insurance Company and there is nothing to show that the said amount was not reimbursed as well. Looking to the nature of the injuries the petitioner is held entitled to the amount of the bills. The petitioner had placed on record an estimate dated 31.7.2013 for removal of implants as per which the tentative cost of surgery would be around Rs.35,000/. The petitioner has not got the same proved. Even otherwise the same is dated 31.7.2013 whereas it is now 2015 and there is nothing to show that the petitioner has undergone the surgery as mentioned. However the petitioner would incur some expenses even subsequently. Accordingly an amount of Rs.20,000/ is awarded towards [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 17 of 30 medical treatment and expenses including the amount of the bills and future expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
19. It has been held in [PRECEDENT] as under:
13."The damages for vehicular accidents are in the nature of compensation in money for loss of any kind caused to any person. In case of personal injury the position is different from loss of property. In the later case there is possibility of repair or restoration. But in the case of personal injury, the possibility of repair or restoration is practically nonexistent. In [PRECEDENT] Lord [ENTITY] stated as follows:
"To compensate in money for pain and for the physical consequences is invariably difficult, but no other process can be devised than that of making monetary assessment."
The case of the petitioner is that due to the hit by the offending vehicle on 1.4.2013 the petitioner fell down on the road with his motorcycle and sustained multiple fractures and injuries upon his hip, thigh and knee and other parts of the body. After the accident the petitioner was admitted in AIIMS, Trauma Centre by the police official and he got his treatment there. It was averred that due to the accident he was bed ridden for long. It was averred that due to the accident the petitioner lost his income and future prospects of his life as the injuries had made the petitioner a permanently handicapped person and in [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 18 of 30 future also he would be unable to do hard labour. It was averred that the accident had caused a great loss in his life and earning and his ability of working was also slashed down and the accident made him physically weak and now he was not so energetic to work hard. It was averred that the petitioner was having many plans in his life but the accident left him nowhere. The accident had made him completely confined to bed for a long period. The petitioner stated that he sustained fracture injuries in his right leg, hip and right knee and also sustained injuries upon other parts of the body and after the accident he was hospitalized in AIIMS Trauma Centre and Hospital, New Delhi where he got first aid treatment and he got his fractured leg operated at Parnami Orthopaedic Hospital and Joint Replacement Centre. He stated that due to the accident he was bed ridden for around five months from the date of the accident as he sustained fracture in his right leg and hip region and also multiple injuries on the other parts of the body. He stated that due to injuries sustained in the accident, he became a disabled person and the same was slashing down his working ability as well as his day to day life had become abnormal. He stated that he was still suffering hard life since the day of accident and the same would continue for long. Since, the day of accident he had difficulties in moving, climbing the stairs. He stated that due to the accident, his family suffered a lot as he was bedridden for a long period and also became unemployed. He stated that he had suffered a lot of physical as well as mental pain and agony, he had also lost his future prospective income as after the accident, he was not as energetic as he was previously. He stated [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 19 of 30 that the accident had made him permanently weak and disabled as his injured parts of the body were not working properly till date and as per his condition it would cause problem the whole life. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the nature of injuries was opined to be grievous. The documents placed on record show that he had sustained fracture of shaft of femur right and further he remained admitted in hospital from 1.4.2013 to 10.4.2013. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had sustained any disability in the accident. Looking at the nature of injuries and extent of treatment and that the accident pertains to the year 2013, the petitioner is awarded Rs.25,000/ (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only) for pain and suffering.
20. The petitioner was stated to be 26 years old and it was so stated in the claim petition and PW1 had also deposed to that effect. Copy of DL of the petitioner is Ex.PW1/1 as per which the date of birth of the petitioner is 11.3.1987. As such he would have been more than 26 years old on the date of the accident i.e. 1.4.2013. Notice can be taken of the fact that on account of the injuries sustained by him the petitioner may not have been able to perform his day to day duties towards his family and on account of the injuries suffered by him the petitioner may not have been able to enjoy the amenities of life. In the circumstances the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/ (Rs.Ten Thousand only) for loss of amenities of life. The petitioner cannot however be held to be entitled to any amount towards loss of expectation of life or towards [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 20 of 30 disfiguration.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
21. The petitioner in para 4 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had stated that he had incurred heavy amount on travel. Although the petitioner has not filed any document on record in order to prove the expenditure on conveyance however, notice can be taken of the fact that after the accident the petitioner was taken to AIIMS Hospital and thereafter to Parnami Hospital and that after discharge from hospital he might have hired the services of private conveyance as he would not have been able to drive of his own or to use public conveyance. In the circumstances a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs.Five Thousand only) would be just and proper towards conveyance charges.
22. The petitioner in para 4 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had stated that he had incurred heavy amount on special diet. Although the petitioner has not proved that he was advised special diet but looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner notice can be taken of the fact that the petitioner might have taken diet rich in protein, vitamins and minerals for speedier recovery. In the circumstances the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rs.Five Thousand only) for special diet.
[ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 21 of 30
23. The petitioner in para 4 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had stated that he had incurred heavy amount on attendants. Although the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that he incurred any expenses towards attendant charges, however looking to the nature of injuries the petitioner would have incurred some expenditure on attendant charges and a sum of Rs. 12,000/ is awarded towards attendant charges.
24. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the accident his motorcycle was badly damaged. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 stated that his motorcycle was insured with ICICI Lombard Insurance Company. He made a claim with ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. and the amount for repairing the motorcycle bearing registration No.DL8SAZ7776 was paid by the said company. He stated that regarding the damages caused to the motorcycle same was claimed from the ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Thus PW1 stated that his motorcycle was insured with ICICI Lombard Insurance Company and that he had made a claim with ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. and the amount for repairing the motorcycle bearing registration No.DL8SAZ7776 was paid by the said company. Even otherwise the petitioner has not filed any bill showing the expenses on repair of the motorcycle. As such he would not be entitled to any amount on this account. [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 22 of 30 LOSS OF INCOME
25. It is the case of the petitioner that he was a young and good personality of only 26 years of age at the time of the accident and was having good health and physique and he was working as an Assistant Executive with Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. at plot No.SPL2(D), 2(E), 2(F) and 2(G), Tapukara Industrial Area, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan and was getting a monthly salary of around Rs.45,000/ but due to the accident he was bed ridden for long. It was averred that due to the accident the petitioner lost his income and future prospects of his life as the injuries had made the petitioner a permanently handicapped person and in future also he would be unable to do hard labour. The petitioner was an ITI Degree holder and had good scope and chances to scale the ladder of his career upto the last but now such imagination had only become a dream for the petitioner. It was averred that the accident had caused a great loss in his life and earning and his ability of working was also slashed down. It was averred that the job profile of the petitioner required physical involvement but the accident made him physically weak and now he was not so energetic to work hard. It was averred that the petitioner was having many plans in his life but the accident left him nowhere. PW1 in paras 3, 4 and 5 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had deposed to that effect. He stated that due to the accident he was bed ridden for around five months from the date of the accident. He stated that he was the only bread earner of his family. Due to the accident, he was absent from his duty for around five [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 23 of 30 months. He stated that due to injuries sustained in the accident, he became a disabled person and the same was slashing down his working ability as well as his day to day life had become abnormal. He stated that he was still suffering hard life since the day of accident and the same would continue for long. Since, the day of accident he had difficulties in moving, climbing the stairs. He stated that due to the accident, his family suffered a lot as he was bedridden for a long period and became unemployed. He stated that he had also lost his future prospective income as after the accident, he was not as energetic as he was previously. He stated that his working ability/capability was also slashed down as he would not get his previous strength and health again as previously he was having a good health and physique. He stated that the injuries sustained by him in the accident were affecting his career as now the employer was not appreciating his working ability and also was not ready and willing to promote him or give increment in salary. Copy of medical certificate issued by the hospital regarding his bed rest, advising bed rest from 01.04.2013 to 31.07.2013 is Ex.PW1/5 (colly), appointment letter given by his employer at the time joining his office is Ex.PW1/6 (colly).
26. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 stated that he was class XIIth pass and had diploma in Tools and Die Making. He stated that he was working with Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. since 10th January, 2011. He stated that he joined Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd as an Assistant Executive and [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 24 of 30 was presently working as Executive. He stated that he did not file ITR. Thus PW1 stated that he was working with Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. since 10th January, 2011. It is pertinent that PW1 stated that he joined Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd as an Assistant Executive and was presently working as Executive whereas it was stated that due to the accident he had become unemployed. He also stated that he did not file ITR. The petitioner in support of his case had examined PW2 who had brought the records of the injured Shri [ENTITY] who he stated was working in the company as Assistant Executive at the time of the accident and at present he was posted as Executive in their company after being promoted. He had also brought the salary record of the injured and the same is Ex.PW2/3 (colly). During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW2 stated that he did not have any idea regarding the salary amount paid by the employer to the injured [ENTITY]. He stated that at the time of the accident the injured was posted at their company's plant located at Tapukara, Alwar, Rajasthan. Thus PW2 had stated about the petitioner being promoted though he did not have any idea regarding the salary amount paid by the employer to the injured. PW2 had produced the salary slip of the petitioner for the month of April, 2013 which shows the total emoluments of the petitioner as Rs.31,858/ but the same also included various allowances. As such there is nothing to show that the petitioner was earning Rs.45,000/ p.m. at the time of the accident.
[ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 25 of 30
27. The petitioner had stated that he was bed ridden for around 5 months from the date of the accident and he was absent from his duty for around five months. The petitioner had also produced copy of medical certificate issued by the hospital regarding his bed rest, advising bed rest from 01.04.2013 to 31.07.2013 which is Ex.PW1/5 (colly). During crossexamination PW1 stated that he was on leave from 01.04.2013 till 31.07.2013. He stated that he received the salary for approximately 2 months from his employer when he was on leave for the said period. PW2 had brought the copy of leave record of the injured which is Ex.PW2/2. He stated that due to the accident he was on leave from 01.07.2013 to 31.07.2013. He stated that the injured did not get salary of total 73 days out of the sanctioned leave. The salary certificate for the months of June, 2013 and July, 2013 were not generated and he did not get the salary for the same period. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW2 stated that the petitioner received the entire salary for the month of April, 2013 and for the month of May, 2013 nine days salary was deducted from his monthly salary. For the months of June, 2013 and July, 2013 he did not receive any salary. He stated that since, the injured was on leave for the months of June and July, 2013 hence, the salary slip in respect of his employment could not be generated and the same had not been submitted before the Court. He stated that after 31st July, 2013 the injured [ENTITY] resumed his work and was continuously working with their company till date. The petitioner had placed on record medical certificates which show that he was prescribed bed rest from 1.4.2013 to 31.7.2013 and PW2 had also [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 26 of 30 stated that the petitioner was on leave for the said period. PW2 had stated that the petitioner was not paid salary for total 73 days out of sanctioned leave. The petitioner would be entitled to some amount towards the period of leave. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs.90,000/ on account of loss of income for the period for which he was not able to work.
28. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner had suffered any disability on account of the injuries. The petitioner has not proved that he acquired any disability on account of the accident or that he is likely to suffer future loss of income on account of the injuries sustained in the accident and that the injuries would reduce his efficiency to work and thereby he would suffer loss of future income. During examination by the Tribunal the petitioner stated that he was 27 years old. He stated that at the time of the accident he was working with Honda Motorcycle and even at present he was doing the same job and his salary at present had increased. Even PW2 had stated that the petitioner stood promoted and was now working as Executive in their company. Accordingly the petitioner cannot be held entitled to any amount on account of loss of future income.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
Medicines and Medical treatment Rs.20,000/ Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/ Loss of Amenities of life Rs.10,000/ Conveyance Rs.5,000/ [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 27 of 30 Special Diet Rs.5,000/ Attendant charges Rs.12,000/ Loss of Income Rs.90,000/ TOTAL Rs.1,67,000/ Thus the total compensation would be Rs.1,67,000/. RELIEF
29. The petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.1,67,000/ (Rs.One Lac Sixty Seven Thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization including, interim award, if any already passed against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the award amount directly in court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft within 30 days of the passing of the award failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay. The petitioner shall file his complete address as well as address of his counsel for sending the notice of deposit of the award amount. APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
30. The respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Thus the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are held jointly and severally liable. The respondent No.3 i.e. [ENTITY] had not disputed the policy. No [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 28 of 30 evidence has been led on behalf of the insurance company to show any violation of terms and condition of the policy by the respondents No.1 and 2 and in fact the duly verified documents in respect of the offending vehicle were placed on record with the DAR. Hence, the respondent No.3 being the insurance company in respect of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2. The respondent No.3 being the insurer is directed to deposit the award amount in the court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft within 30 days of the passing of the award with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
31. [ENTITY] to report in case the cheque is not deposited within 30 days of the passing of the award/judgment. [ENTITY] is directed to note the particulars of the award amount in the register today itself. The respondent No.3 shall deposit the award amount along with interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant with a copy to his counsel and the compliance report shall be filed in the court along with proof of deposit of award amount, the notice of deposit and the calculation of interest on 29.05.2015.
Attested copy of the award be given to the parties free of cost. [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 29 of 30 File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court on this 28th day of February, 2015 ([ENTITY]) PO: MACT2 NEW DELHI [ENTITY] v [ENTITY] & Ors. Page no. 30 of 30