-1- In the court of [ENTITY], Addl. District & Sessions Judge cum Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rohini Courts, Delhi. (MACT Case no. 459/10/08) Smt. [ENTITY] w/o Sh. S.P. Behl R/o C-2/62, 2nd floor, Sector-16 Rohini, Delhi Petitioner/Claimant Versus 1) Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Rajender Pal Singh R/o G-33, Budh Bazar Road, Rithala Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi 2) Sh. [ENTITY] s/o Sh. Bhoop Singh R/o 382 A/1, Jharkhandi Road Gali no. 2, Shahdara, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi 3) The [ENTITY] 19, Reliance Centre, Walchand Hira Chand Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai Respondents Date of institution-31-3-2008 Date of decision 2-12-2010 (Application u/s 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation) -2- JUDGMENT:
Petitioner Smt. [ENTITY] aged about 55 years was going on foot from her residence towards G-Block Market of Sector-16, Rohini on 31-1-2008 at about 11.30 a.m. and when she reached on main road opposite her house, then one taxi/Indica car bearing no. DL-1YA-4620 being driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner at high speed came from opposite directions on its wrong side and hit her. Due to this accident petitioner suffered grievous injuries. A criminal case under [SECTION] [ACT] was registered against respondent no. 1 vide FIR no. 61/08 in police station Prashant Vihar. Petitioner claimed sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% p.a. from respondents under various heads.
Respondents no. 1 and 2 were duly served and on their behalf vakalatnama of counsel Sh. [ENTITY] was also filed but despite various opportunities they failed to file their written statement and ultimately become exparte. Respondent no. 3 insurance company in its written statement admitted that offending car was insured with it but took various grounds to avoid its liability to pay compensation.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 17-8-2009 by my ld. Predecessor;
1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in the roadside accident occurred on 31-1-2008 at about 11.30 a.m. on main road, opposite H.No. C-2/62, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1 of offending vehicle no. DL-1YA-4620 (Taxi Indica car)? OPP
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents? OPP
3) Relief.
In order to prove her case, petitioner examined herself as PW-1, [ENTITY] as PW-2 from police station to prove FIR registered against respondent no. 1 and Sh. [ENTITY] to prove medical record as PW-3. Respondent no. 3 insurance company also examined one of its official Sh. [ENTITY] as R3W1 to prove that driving license of respondent no. 1 was forged. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record and also summoned some clarifications from hospital regarding medical bill. My decision on the above mentioned issues is as under:
Issue no. 1:-
Petitioner PW-1 in her affidavit of evidence deposed about the manner of accident. She specifically alleged that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending car which was coming from wrong side on opposite directions at fast speed and hit her when she was on the extreme left side of the road. This version of petitioner has not been controverted by respondent no. 3 insurance company due to absence of any cross examination in this regard whereas respondents no. 1 and 2 had chosen to become exparte. Driver respondent no. 1 was also prosecuted by the police for driving the offending car in rash and negligent manner and causing grievous injuries to the petitioner due to accident as per copy of FIR Ex.PW2/A proved by PW-2. Petitioner also placed on record certified copies of criminal case record to establish that the offending car was seized by the police and respondent no. 1 driver was arrested. The offending car was got released on superdari lateron from the court by respondent no. 2. These circumstances especially absence of cross examination of petitioner clearly establish that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car by its driver and hit petitioner from opposite directions while coming on wrong side due to which petitioner had suffered injuries. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2:-
The medical record of hospital Ex. PW3/A produced by PW-3 and various bills produced by the petitioner Ex. PW1/1 to 20 shows that petitioner had suffered injuries including one fracture of right leg due to road accident. She remain admitted in the hospital from 31-1-2008 to 2-2-2008. She was also operated upon in the hospital and some implants i.e. K-wire were inserted in her leg. Her treatment even continued after discharge from the hospital till the end of March, 2008. However she has not suffered any permanent disability.
Petitioner was a housewife and was not doing any job or work so no question of any loss of salary arises. Medical bills placed on record show that she had incurred sum of Rs. 23,526 paisa on her medicine, operation, hospital admissions etc. No dispute regarding the correctness and genuineness of these bills is raised on behalf of respondents so the amount of the medical bills at Rs. 23,526 as claimed is liable to be paid to the petitioner.
Petitioner has also proved through PW-3 one certificate issued by hospital regarding expenses of 6 to 8 thousand in respect of future treatment for removal of implant i.e. K-wire. I hereby also order that sum of Rs. 8,000/- for future medical expenses be paid to petitioner.
Petitioner has not brought on record any evidence regarding expenses incurred on special diet, conveyance charges etc. Normally in case of serious injury, a special diet in the form of healthy food, juices, milk etc. is provided instead of or in addition to the normal food. Petitioner must have been taken to hospital in some transport but in absence of any evidence and keeping in view extent of fracture, period of admission in the hospital etc., I am of the view that maximum petitioner can be paid Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet and conveyance.
Petitioner in her affidavit alleged that due to injuries she could not do household work and employed full time maid for three months at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. However no name of that maid is disclosed nor any receipt of making payment of this amount is produced but that itself is not sufficient to disbelieve her. Petitioner might not be able to do her work in the house such like cooking, cleaning, washing etc. due to fracture and if for doing these works, any servant or maid is employed then certainly this is normal human behaviour and conducts and can be said as justified. Accordingly petitioner is entitled to sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards helper charges.
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that due to suffering of such an extent of injuries and fracture, normal human life is also affected. Petitioner might have remained under lot of pain and sufferings due to fracture on her body for atleast two three months in the old age of about 55 years. Difficulty and inconvenience to some extent must have arisen to perform even daily routine acts and even going to toilet due to leg fracture. Petitioner could not enjoy the amenities of life properly for few months. Such type of non pecuniary losses cannot be assessed in terms of money but keeping in view the facts of the case, petitioner is granted lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, inconvenience etc. R3W1 official of insurance company has proved on record that driving license of the respondent no. 1 was fake and never issued by the concerned licensing authority. Insurance company also lodged complaint against respondent no. 1 for registration of FIR for keeping fake license. Conduct of driver and owner of the offending vehicle in not coming forward to disprove this fact further establish that plea taken by respondent no. 3 is correct. Otherwise also certificate issued by licensing authority Ex. R3W1/9 can not be disbelieved as it was purportedly issued by a govt. agency in discharge of official duty. Accordingly it is held that respondent no. 1 was driving offending car at the time of accident without any proper and valid driving license and his license produced before police was forged and fabricated document. In such circumstances after relying upon case laws [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] it is ordered that compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner at first instance and then it can be recovered from owner of the offending vehicle.
After considering the merits of the case, petitioner is entitled to get the following total compensation from the insurance company i.e. respondent no. 3 which is given the recovery rights to get the same recovered from respondent no. 2 lateron.
a) Attended/helper charges Rs. 9,000/-
b) Medical expenses Rs. 23,526/-
c) Future medical expenses Rs. 8,000/-
d) Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
e) Special diet & conveyance charges Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 1,00,526/-
Petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. on this amount from the date of institution of the petition i.e. 31-3-2008 till realization. In view of the above discussions, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against respondents.
Issue no. 3 (Relief):-
On the basis of findings given above, present petition is disposed off and award is passed. Respondent no. 3 insurance company is directed to pay within 30 days a sum of Rs. 1,00,526/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from 31-3-2008 till this amount is fully realized. Insurance company is also given recovery rights to get the award amount recovered lateron from respondent no. 2 owner of the offending vehicle through execution proceedings.
Copy of this judgment be given to petitioner and counsel for respondent no. 3 and file be consigned to record room.
([ENTITY]) Dt. 2-12-2010 Judge, MACT (Outer-II)