IN THE COURT OF MS. [ENTITY] : PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : EAST DISTRICT : DELHI DAR No : 86/11 Unique Case ID No: 02402C0 066972011 [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Zulfikar Ahmad R/o B - 67, New Govindpura, 3nd Floor, Delhi - 110 051 PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Sh. [ENTITY], S/o. Sh. R. P. Sharma R/o. C722, Saboli Extn. , Delhi. DRIVER 2. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o. Sh. Bhajan Lal, R/o. C3/132, Gali No. 310, Saboli Extn., Delhi REG. OWNER 3. [ENTITY] Office - A - 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi - 110 002. INSURER RESPONDENTS
Date of institution : 04.01.2011 Reserved for orders : 26.05.2014 Date of Award : 07.06.2014 [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] V/s. [ENTITY] Page No: 1/1 A W A R D
1. The petitioner has filed the present Petition U/[SECTION] & [SECTION] of [ACT] claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ (Rs. Five lac only) for the injuries suffered by him in the road side accident dated 04.12.2010.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.12.2010 at about 11.15 a.m. petitioner was going on his motor cycle No. DL7SAP1607. As he reached Garg Hospital, one Car bearing registration No. DL8CT4164, driven by respondent no.1 at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. As a result, petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries; that petitioner was immediately taken to Dr. Hedgewar hospital; that a case FIR No. 528/10, u/[SECTION] [ACT] was registered at P.S Anand Vihar against respondent no.1.
3. It is stated that the respondent no. 1 is the driver, respondent no.
2 is the owner and respondent no.3 is the insurer.
4. The notice of petition was served upon respondents. The respondents no.1 and 2 put their appearance and filed their joint WS, in which they contended that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself. It is [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] V/s. [ENTITY] Page No: 2/2 contended that the offending vehicle is duly insured by the respondent no. 3.
5. The respondent no. 3 filed WS in which it is stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured in the name of Sh. [ENTITY] with policy valid from 21.08.2010 to 20.07.2011. Rest of the averments of the petition are denied as wrong.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor on 21.07.2011 :
1. Whether the Petitioner has suffered injuries in road side accident on 04.12.2010 involving vehicle i.e. car bearing registration no. DL8CT4164 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by R1? OPP.
2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the Petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. The Petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has relied upon the documents i.e. Medical Bills of treatment Ex. PW1/1 (Coll. 2 sheets), Treatment Record Ex. PW1/2 (Colly 6 sheets), DL as Ex. PW1/3, attested copy of criminal case record as Ex.PW1/4 (coll. 27 sheets) and photograph of injury Ex. [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] V/s. [ENTITY] Page No: 3/3 PW1/5. On the other hand, respondents have not led any evidence.
8. I have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. My findings on the issues are as under: ISSUE NO. 1 :
Whether the Petitioner has suffered injuries in road side accident on 09.01.2013 involving vehicle i.e. car bearing registration no. UP14AA0007 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by R1?
9. For succeeding in a claim petition filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT], it is for the Petitioner to prove that the vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. This is sine qua non for getting the relief. Petitioner/ PW1 stated that on 04.12.2010 petitioner was going on his motor cycle No. DL7SAP1607 as he reached Garg Hospital, one Car bearing registration No. DL8CT4164, driven by respondent no.1 at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. As a result, petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
10.It is pertinent to mention that respondents have not lead any evidence. Police after investigation has filed chargesheet against respondent no.1 under [SECTION] [ACT] in case FIR 528/10 [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] V/s. [ENTITY] Page No: 4/4 Police Station Anand Vihar which is primafacie suggestive of negligence of respondent no.1 in driving the vehicle at the time of accident. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has observed as under :
"In deciding a matter tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the tribunal there must be some material on the basis of which the tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society."
11.In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that :
"The last contention of the appellant insurance [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] V/s. [ENTITY] Page No: 5/5 company is that the respondents - Petitioners 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 the offending vehicle; (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of chargesheet under [SECTION], [ACT] against the driver; (iii) certified copy of F.I.R., wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the 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 requires 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 the part of the driver".
12. This case was noticed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as [PRECEDENT] where adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] V/s. [ENTITY] Page No: 6/6 taken in the written statement. It was noted that there is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case. The issue thus stands decided in favour of Petitioner holding that the accident happened as a result of negligent driving by respondent no.1.
ISSUE NO.2 :
To what amount of compensation, if any, the Petitioner is entitled to?
13. In the case of [PRECEDENT] [CASE NUMBER] decided on 18.10.2010, following principles were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for determining compensation payable to road traffic accident victims:
i) The compensation payable to the Petitioner who is a victim of road accident should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the Petitioner to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equatable manner.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] V/s. [ENTITY] Page No: 7/7
ii) Compensation payable in injury cases is payable under two heads. They are pecuniary damages (special damages) and non pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages have three sub heads which are : (i) expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) (a) Loss of earning (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising of loss of earning during the period of treatment and (b) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (iii) Future medical expenses. Nonpecuniary damages (General Damage) are (iv) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries
(v) loss of amenities and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and (vi) loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
iii) In routine personal injury cases compensation is awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the Petitioner, that compensation is granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii) and
(vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospectus of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
14. Soon after the accident, the Petitioner was taken to Dr. [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] V/s. [ENTITY] Page No: 8/8 Hedgawar Hospital. He suffered grievous injury of fracture of Medial Malleolus (Right). Ex. PW1/2 shows that he was treated by Dr. [ENTITY]. During his examination by Court, he stated that he found difficulty in walking and was still unable to wear covered footwear/ shoes due to swollen feet. Considering over all circumstances, for pain and suffering, the Petitioner is awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/.
15.Medical bills worth Rs. 5,400/ are placed on record. The Petitioner thus is awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,400/ for Cost of Treatment.
16.Petitioner was working at a printing press and doing printing job. There is nothing on record in support of the same. With the kind of injuries suffered by Petitioner, it can be assumed that he would have remained without work at least for a period of three months. In the absence of any income proof or educational qualification, reliance has to be placed upon minimum wages payable to the unskilled workman on the date of accident which were Rs. 5,278/ p.m.
17.Therefore, the Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.
15,834/ (i.e. Rs.5278 x 3) for Loss of Wages.
18.With the kind of injuries suffered he would have needed the [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] V/s. [ENTITY] Page No: 9/9 help of an attendant at least for a period of three months. It is well settled that a victim of an accident has to be compensated in terms of money even if gratuitous services are rendered by a family member. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that there cannot be any deduction if domestic help is obtained from a family member. The Hon'ble High Court has observed as under : " A wrong doer cannot take advantage of this 'domestic element'. If the mother renders service to her, instead of a nurse, it is right and just that she should recover compensation for the value of the services that the mother has rendered to her. Mother's services were necessitated by the wrong doing and the injured should be compensated for it. ([PRECEDENT]). The services of a wife and mother are worth more than those of a housekeeper because she is in constant attendance and does many more things than a housekeeper. ([PRECEDENT])."
19.This judgment was again relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of [PRECEDENT] dated 04.07.12.
20.Therefore, on a lump sum basis, the Petitioner is awarded a [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] V/s. [ENTITY] Page No: 10/10 compensation of Rs.15,000/ for three months as Attendant's Charges.
21.The Petitioner is also awarded compensation of Rs.7,500/ towards Special Diet and Rs.7,500/ for Conveyance Charges. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I consider the following amount to be the just compensation to the Petitioner : 1 Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000.00 2 Towards servant/attendant for 3 months Rs. 15,000.00 3 Towards conveyance and special diet (without Rs. 15,000.00 bills) 4 Towards medical bills Rs. 5,400.00 5 Towards loss of earning for 3 months (Rs. 5278 Rs. 15,834.00 x 3) Total Rs. 1,01,234.00
22.Therefore, in my opinion the Petitioner is entitled to Rs.
1,01,234/ which shall be the just compensation to Petitioner. LIABILITY :
23.There being no evidence to support the defence U/[SECTION] of the [ACT], no case is made out for granting the recovery rights to the respondent no.3. Therefore, the respondent no. 3/insurance company shall make good the compensation in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] V/s. [ENTITY] Page No: 11/11 terms of the accepted policy.
A W A R D
24.The petition stands allowed. The respondent No.3/Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of Rs.1,01,234/. However, the respondent No.3/insurance company having admitted the policy, is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,01,234/, within one month. The respondent no.3/insurance company shall also pay interest @ 9% per annum on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the Petitioner.
25.The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by respondent no.3/Insurance Company, within 30 days in the court. In case, even after passage of 90 days from today, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of [PRECEDENT], this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the Insurance Company with a cost of Rs.10,000/.
26.The respondent no.3 is directed to give notice regarding the deposit of the amount to the Petitioner at the address mentioned [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] V/s. [ENTITY] Page No: 12/12 in the memo of parties and will also sent copy of notice to the counsel for Petitioner at the address mentioned in the Vakalatnama.
List for reporting compliance on 20.07.2014. Announced in the open court Dated : 7th June, 2014 (MS. [ENTITY]) PRERSIDING OFFICER MACT (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] V/s. [ENTITY] Page No: 13/13 [CASE NUMBER]86/11 07.06.2014 Present : Ld. Counsel for parties.
Vide separate order, an Award is passed in favour of Petitioner and against respondent no.2, as per which the respondent No.3/Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,01,234/. However, the respondent No.3/insurance company having admitted the policy, is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,01,234/, within one month. The respondent no.3/insurance company shall also pay interest @ 9% per annum (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the Petitioner.
The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by respondent no.3/Insurance Company, within 30 days in the court. In case, even after passage of 90 days from today, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of [PRECEDENT], this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the Insurance Company with a cost of Rs.10,000/.
The respondent no is.3 is directed to give notice regarding the deposit of the amount to the Petitioner at the address mentioned in the memo of parties and will also sent copy of notice to the counsel for Petitioner at the address mentioned in the Vakalatnama.
List for reporting compliance on 20.07.2014.
(MS. [ENTITY]) P.O. MACT (EAST)/KKD./DELHI/07.06.2014 [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] V/s. [ENTITY] Page No: 14/14