IN THE COURT OF MS. [ENTITY], PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL2, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI [CASE NUMBER] Date of Institution: 22.07.2015 IN THE MATTER OF: [ENTITY] S/o Late Shri Chandan Singh R/o 1684, Laxmi Bai Nagar New Delhi. Petitioner Versus 1. [ENTITY] S/o Shri Virender Singh R/o Village & P.O. Dev Rala PS Shikar Pur Bulandshahar, U.P. 2. [ENTITY] S/o Shri Chandan Giri R/o H.No.243 Kila Mewai, Khurja Bulandshahar, U.P. 3. [ENTITY] A25/27, Asaf Ali Road New Delhi 110002. Respondents
Final Arguments heard : 14.12.2015 Award reserved for : 02.01.2016 Date of Award : 02.01.2016 [CASE NUMBER] AWARD
1. Vide this judgmentcumaward, I proceed to decide the DAR which is treated as petition 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 15.04.2014 at about 06:00 P.M., the petitioner was sitting on his motorcycle bearing No.DL13S0816 near Ramlila Ground at Hoshiyar Singh Marg, New Delhi and talking to his friend. In the meantime one Xylo car bearing No.UP93X1948 being driven by its driver/ respondent No.1 came in a very high speed and rash and negligent manner from the back side and hit the injured with great force. Due to the impact he along with his motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his whole body. From the place of accident, he was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Centre where the doctor on duty prepared his MLC. It is stated that in respect of the accident FIR No.216/14 under [SECTION] [ACT] was registered at PS Sarojini Nagar.
3. It is averred that on account of the accident the injured suffered grievous injury fracture proximal phalanx right index finger and other multiple grievous injuries on whole part of the body. The injured remained as an indoor patient in the hospital on 15.04.2014 and he was discharged from the hospital the same day. At the time of discharge he was advised by the doctors to [CASE NUMBER] attend the hospital from time to time and to take rich and high protein diet for early recovery. It is stated that his treatment continued as an outdoor patient in AIIMS Trauma Center for about three months. It is submitted that the petitioner must have spent more than Rs.50,000/ on his medicine and treatment. He used to spend more than Rs.300/ per day on special diet for about three months on the advice of the doctors. It is averred that the petitioner was not in a position to use public transport, therefore he used to go in private commercial vehicle whenever he had to go and thus he had spent more than Rs.10,000/ on conveyance. It is contended that due to the accident, the injured could not lift weight and he could not do his regular work as he used to do prior to the accident and he had become a permanent disabled person. It is submitted that at the time of the accident the petitioner was 39 years old and he was a government servant in Ministry of Home Affairs as staff car driver. At the time of the accident his monthly salary was Rs.28,373/. It is contended that due to the accident the petitioner was unable to do his job for about two months and thus he suffered great monetary losses. It is averred that the injured had suffered lot of mental pain, physical and social losses and financial loss because of the accident. Not only the injured but his entire family had suffered because of the accident. It is submitted that the petitioner had not recovered from the injuries sustained by him in the accident and he still felt pain in his injuries.
[CASE NUMBER]
4. Reply to DAR was filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 denying the averments made. It is submitted that the police in collusion with the complainant had falsely implicated the vehicle bearing No.UP93X1948 in the alleged accident, whereas the said vehicle was not run in Delhi at the relevant time and was in U.P. Preliminary objections were taken that the petition did not disclose the real cause of action against the respondent No.1 as the same was an abuse of the process of law. It is contended that the accident took place not due to the negligence of the respondent No.1, in fact an unknown vehicle hit the injured and fled away from the spot and in collusion with the police, in order to secure his claim, the injured falsely implicated the respondents No.1 and 2 in the false case. It is stated that the FIR disclosed the vehicle No.UP93X1458 whereas the vehicle impounded by the police was bearing No.UP93X1948 and the said vehicle was impounded by the police in the alleged accident in collusion with the complainant only to harass the respondents No.1 and 2 and settle the score of the petitioner to give him undue advantage. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and the vehicle bearing No.UP93X1948 was duly insured with the respondent No.3 vide policy/ cover note [CASE NUMBER] valid upto 13.03.2015 due to which no liability arose against the respondents No.1 and 2 and the respondent No.1 was also having a valid license. It is contended that the petitioner had filed the case only to achieve illegal gain by harassing and impleading the respondents No.1 and 2 in the case and the petition was full of ulterior motives. The averments made [CASE NUMBER] were denied. It is averred that the alleged incident did not occur due to the negligence of the respondent No.1 and in fact the respondent No.1 was implicated by the police in collusion with the complainant in the alleged FIR and the respondents No.1 and 2 had nothing to do with the alleged accident and the police person cooked up a false and frivolous story and implicated the respondent in the alleged FIR. It is alleged that the compensation claimed in the petition is highly excessive and against the principles of natural justice.
5. Reply to DAR was filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 averring that the claim is false, frivolous, baseless and vexatious and no such accident had taken place with the insured vehicle TATA Sumo No.UP93X1948 and the accident had taken place with one [ENTITY] having registration No.UP93X1458 against which the FIR was lodged. It is averred that the claimant has not approached the court with clean hands as he had distorted the facts and concealed the material facts from the court and had failed to make out any cause of action against the respondents since the actual vehicle which caused the accident could not be caught by the IO and in order to complete the investigation he had falsely implicated the respondent No.1/ driver/ owner. It is contended that the accident had occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the complainant himself and/ or one [ENTITY] bearing No.UP93X1458 which was clearly borne out by the entire criminal record including the FIR and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, hence it was a case of accident caused by one [CASE NUMBER]UP93X1458 whereas the insured vehicle had been falsely charge sheeted. It is submitted that the claimant had played a fraud on the court by falsely alleging that the driver of the TATA Sumo bearing No.UP93X1948 was rash and negligent. It is averred that the liability of the respondent No.3 is subject to the driver and owner of the offending vehicle holding a valid and effective license at the time of the accident as per the provisions of the [ACT]. It is contended that the case is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary and proper parties as the registered owner, [ENTITY] at the time of the alleged accident of the alleged offending vehicle had neither been served Pabandinama nor been impleaded. It is stated that the accident had taken place on 15.04.2014 whereas the vehicle had been transferred in the name of the owner [ENTITY] from [ENTITY] on 08.09.2014. It is submitted that the offending vehicle TATA Sumo No.UP93X1948 was insured in the name of [ENTITY] for the period 14.03.2014 to 13.03.2015 vide endorsement dated 08.09.2014 with the respondent No.3 vide policy [CASE NUMBER]. It is averred that the accident had occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the injured himself. It is submitted that the claimant stated that he was a government employee hence he was entitled to facility under CGHS, however, no document had been filed to substantiate how much medical expenses had been covered under the said facility.
[CASE NUMBER]
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 09.09.2015:
1. Whether the petitioner/ injured sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 15.04.2014 at about 06:00 PM at Brig. Hoshiyar Singh Marg, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.UP93X1948 driven by [ENTITY] and owned by [ENTITY] and insured with Oriental Insurance Company, Khurja, Bulandshahar? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. The petitioner himself appeared in the witness box as PW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A. Copy of discharge summary is Ex.PW1/1, copy of ID card of the petitioner is Ex.PW1/2, salary slip is Ex.PW1/3 and DAR is Ex.PW1/4. PE was closed on 18.11.2015. RE was also closed on 18.11.2015.
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 18.11.2015 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court on 11.1.2013 in MACA No.792/2006 titled [ENTITY] v. Ranjit Pandey and Ors.
[CASE NUMBER]
9. My findings on the specific issues are as under:
10. As the case is 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:
"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 [ENTITY] V. Meena Variyal (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 [CASE NUMBER] 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 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 15.04.2014 at about 06:00 P.M., the petitioner was sitting on his motorcycle bearing No.DL13S0816 near Ramlila Ground at Hoshiyar Singh Marg, New Delhi and talking to his friend. In the meantime one Xylo car bearing No.UP93X1948 being driven by its driver/ respondent No.1 came in a very high speed and rash and negligent manner from the back side and hit the injured with great force. Due to the impact he along with his motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his whole body. From the place of accident, he was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Centre where the doctor on duty prepared his MLC. It was stated that [CASE NUMBER] in respect of the accident FIR No.216/14 under [SECTION] [ACT] was registered at PS Sarojini Nagar. The petitioner had also deposed to that effect.
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 DD; copy of MLC, copy of arrest memo, copy of seizure memos; copy of mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle and of the motorcycle of the petitioner, copy of the notices under [SECTION] [ACT], copy of verification report of the RC of the offending vehicle with the copy of the RC, copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle and its verification report and verification report of DL of the respondent No.1 with a copy of the DL and copies of statements under [SECTION] [ACT] As per the FIR No. 216/14 under [SECTION] [ACT], PS Sarojini Nagar 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] though it was stated in the charge sheet that offence under [SECTION] had been added.
13. The respondents No.1 and 2 had filed the reply averring that the police in collusion with the complainant had falsely implicated the vehicle bearing No.UP93X1948 in the alleged accident, whereas the said vehicle was not run in Delhi at the relevant time and was in U.P. It was contended that the accident [CASE NUMBER] took place not due to the negligence of the respondent No.1, in fact an unknown vehicle hit the injured and fled away from the spot and in collusion with the police, in order to secure his claim, the injured falsely implicated the respondents No.1 and 2 in the false case. It was stated that the FIR disclosed the vehicle No.UP93X1458 whereas the vehicle impounded by the police was bearing No.UP93X1948 and the said vehicle was impounded by the police in the alleged accident in collusion with the complainant only to harass the respondents No.1 and 2. It was averred that the alleged incident did not occur due to the negligence of the respondent No.1 and in fact the respondent No.1 was implicated by the police in collusion with the complainant in the alleged FIR and the respondents No.1 and 2 had nothing to do with the alleged accident and the police person cooked up a false and frivolous story and implicated the respondent in the alleged FIR.
14. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to the vehicle bearing No.UP93X1458 and not with vehicle No.UP93X1948. It was argued on behalf of the insurance company that the accident had in fact taken place with another vehicle and not with the alleged offending vehicle and in all the documents the number of the offending vehicle was stated to be UP 93X 1458 whereas the vehicle seized in the present case was UP 93X 1948. A perusal of the complaint of the petitioner on which the FIR was lodged shows that the number of the offending vehicle was mentioned therein as [CASE NUMBER] and that it was a [ENTITY]. However, a perusal of the charge sheet shows that the complainant had subsequently told the IO that the number of the offending vehicle was UP 93X 1948 and the statement of the complainant to that effect is also on record wherein he had stated that the IO had told him that the vehicle bearing No.UP 93X 1458 was a motorcycle and then he remembered that the vehicle number was UP 93X 1948. It is seen that there is not much difference in the two numbers. Moreover as regards the make of the vehicle, it is not necessary that a person would know the makes of all the vehicles. It is pertinent that the petitioner had stated that the driver of the offending vehicle had taken him to the hospital. Further the DL of the respondent No.1 was handed over to the IO by the petitioner though after nearly two months of the accident. In these circumstances nothing much turns on the number of the offending vehicle being stated in the complaint differently from the number of the vehicle which was eventually seized.
15. The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle does not show any damage. However the mechanical inspection was got carried out 8 months after the accident. The mechanical inspection report of the motorcycle of the petitioner shows that the headlight rim was bent and scratched and right side front indicator light was broken and right side front foot rest was bent. The respondents No.1 and 2 who are the driver and 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 [CASE NUMBER] record which shows that the respondent No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offence under [SECTION] [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 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.UP93X1948. 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.
16. It was stated that due to the accident on 15.4.2014 the petitioner along with his motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his whole body. From the place of accident, he was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Centre where the doctor on duty prepared his MLC. The MLC of the petitioner is on record which shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner. 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.
[CASE NUMBER] Issue No.2
17. 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
18. The case of the petitioner is that due to the accident on 15.4.2014 the petitioner along with his motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his whole body. From the place of accident, he was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Centre where the doctor on duty prepared his MLC. It was averred that on account of the accident the injured suffered grievous injury fracture proximal phalanx right index finger and other multiple grievous injuries on whole part of the body. The injured remained as an indoor patient in the hospital on 15.04.2014 and he was discharged from the hospital the same [CASE NUMBER] day. At the time of discharge he was advised by the doctors to attend the hospital from time to time and to take rich and high protein diet for early recovery. It was stated that his treatment continued as an outdoor patient in AIIMS Trauma Center for about three months. It is submitted that the petitioner must have spent more than Rs.50,000/ on his medicine and treatment. It was contended that due to the accident, the injured could not lift weight and he could not do his regular work as he used to do prior to the accident and he had become a permanent disabled person. It was averred that the injured had suffered lot of mental pain, physical and social losses and financial loss because of the accident. Not only the injured but his entire family had suffered because of the accident. It was submitted that the petitioner had not recovered from the injuries sustained by him in the accident and he still felt pain in his injuries. The petitioner had also deposed to that effect. Copy of discharge summary is Ex.PW1/1. 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 opined to be grievous. The documents placed on record also show that the petitioner had sustained fracture of proximal phalanx right index finger. Thus the injuries were grievous in nature. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had got any disability due to the accident.
19. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs.50,000/ on his medical and treatment. He admitted that he had not placed on record any [CASE NUMBER] permanent disability certificate. Thus PW1 admitted that he had not placed on record any permanent disability certificate. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner had sustained injuries and underwent treatment for the same. The petitioner had stated that he must have spent more than Rs.50,000/ on his medicine and treatment. The petitioner had not filed any bills and it is seen that the petitioner was in a government job. However the petitioner would have incurred some expenses towards medicines and treatment. Accordingly an amount of Rs.2,000/ is awarded towards medical treatment and expenses. PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
20. 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."
[CASE NUMBER] The case of the petitioner is that due to the accident on 15.4.2014 he along with his motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his whole body. From the place of accident, he was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Centre where the doctor on duty prepared his MLC. It was averred that on account of the accident the injured suffered grievous injury fracture proximal phalanx right index finger and other multiple grievous injuries on whole part of the body. The injured remained as an indoor patient in the hospital on 15.04.2014 and he was discharged from the hospital the same day. At the time of discharge he was advised by the doctors to attend the hospital from time to time. It was stated that his treatment continued as an outdoor patient in AIIMS Trauma Center for about three months. It was contended that due to the accident, the injured could not lift weight and he could not do his regular work as he used to do prior to the accident and he had become a permanent disabled person. It was averred that the injured had suffered lot of mental pain, physical and social losses and financial loss because of the accident. Not only the injured but his entire family had suffered because of the accident. It was submitted that the petitioner had not recovered from the injuries sustained by him in the accident and he still felt pain in his injuries. 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 opined to be grievous. The documents placed on record also show that the petitioner had sustained fracture of proximal phalanx right index finger. Thus the injuries were grievous in nature. However there is nothing to show that the petitioner had got any [CASE NUMBER] disability due to the accident. Looking at the nature of injuries and extent of treatment and that the accident pertains to the year 2014, the petitioner is awarded Rs.25,000/ (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only) for pain and suffering.
21. The petitioner was 39 years of age and PW1 had deposed to that effect. Copy of the voter identity card of the petitioner is on record as per which the age of the petitioner was 35 years as on 1.1.2008. As such he would have been more than 41 years old on the date of the accident i.e. 15.4.2014. 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 disfiguration. CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
22. The petitioner in para 4 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had stated that he was not in a position to use public transport, therefore he used to go in private commercial vehicle whenever he had to go and thus he had spent more than Rs.10,000/ on conveyance. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 admitted that he had not placed any [CASE NUMBER] document to show that he had spent Rs.10,000/ on commuting by a private commercial vehicle. 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 Trauma Centre 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.3,000/ (Rs.Three Thousand only) would be just and proper towards conveyance charges.
23. The petitioner in paras 3 and 4 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A had stated that at the time of discharge he was advised by the doctors to attend the hospital from time to time and to take rich and high protein diet for early recovery. He used to spend more than Rs.300/ per day on special diet for about three months on the advice of the doctors. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs.300/ 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.3,000/ (Rs.Three Thousand only) for special diet.
[CASE NUMBER]
24. 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.6,000/ is awarded towards attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
25. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the accident, he could not lift weight and he could not do his regular work as he used to do prior to the accident and he had become a permanent disabled person. It was submitted that at the time of the accident the petitioner was 39 years old and he was a government servant in Ministry of Home Affairs as staff car driver. At the time of the accident his monthly salary was Rs.28,373/. It was contended that due to the accident the petitioner was unable to do his job for about two months and thus he suffered great monetary losses. It was averred that the injured had suffered lot of mental pain, physical and social losses and financial loss because of the accident. The petitioner had also deposed to that effect. Salary slip is Ex.PW1/3. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 denied the suggestion that he was not working as a staff car driver in Ministry of Home Affairs and was not earning Rs.28,373/ p.m. He denied the suggestion that the pay slip Ex.PW1/3 was forged, fabricated and procured document. He denied the suggestion that he had filed [CASE NUMBER] a false and exaggerated claim. Salary slip of the petitioner is on record as per which his gross salary for the month of March, 2014 was Rs.28,373/ but the same also included various allowances such as transport allowance, PPS Family, Washing Allowance and Miscellaneous Dues. During examination by the Tribunal the petitioner stated that he was 42 years old. He stated that at the time of the accident he was working in the Ministry of Home Affairs as driver and was earning Rs.23,000/ to Rs.24,000/. He stated that at present also he was doing the same job and was earning the same amount.
26. The petitioner had contended that due to the accident he was unable to do his job for about two months and thus he suffered great monetary losses. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance company PW1 admitted that he had not placed any salary slip of two months when he was unable to do his job and any appointment letter, leave application and leave certificate. Thus the petitioner had not placed on record any document to show that he remained on leave for two months. The petitioner has also not produced any document to show that he remained on bed rest for any particular period and there is nothing to show that he was advised bed rest for any particular period or that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident he was unable to work or to show the period for which he was not able to work. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs.35,000/ consolidated on account of loss of income.
[CASE NUMBER]
27. 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. Accordingly the petitioner cannot be held entitled to any amount on account of loss of future prospects.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
Medicines and Medical treatment Rs.2,000/ Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/ Loss of Amenities of life Rs.10,000/ Conveyance Rs.3,000/ Special Diet Rs.3,000/ Attendant charges Rs.6,000/ Loss of Income Rs.35,000/ TOTAL Rs.84,000/ Thus the total compensation would be Rs.84,000/. RELIEF
28. The petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.84,000/ (Rs.Eighty Four 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 [CASE NUMBER] against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the award amount directly in the 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. APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
29. The respondent No.1 is the driver, the 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. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 i.e. [ENTITY] being the insurance company in its reply had stated that the vehicle bearing No.UP93X1948 was duly insured with the respondent No.3 vide policy/ cover note [CASE NUMBER] valid upto 13.03.2015. There is no evidence on behalf of the respondent No.3 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondents No.1 and 2 and in fact the duly verified documents regarding the offending vehicle were placed on record by the IO 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 respondent No.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 [CASE NUMBER] 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.
30. [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 petitioner shall file his complete address as well as address of his counsel for sending the notice of deposit of the award amount. The insurer 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 1.4.2016.
An attested copy of the award be given to the parties (free of cost). File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court on this 2nd day of January, 2016 ([ENTITY]) PO: MACT2 New Delhi [CASE NUMBER]