Delhi District Court
Sh. Kanhiya Lal vs Sh. Bharat Bhushan on 16 May, 2015
Author: Sh. Rajender Shastri
Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan
IN THE COURT OF MR. RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI: PO:MACT1
(NORTH): ROHINI: DELHI
Suit No. 457/09
Sh. KANHIYA LAL, S/O. SH. RAM DEV
R/o. H.NO. 7, GALI NO 1, ROSHAN VIHAR
NAJAFGARH, DELHI
ALSO AT:
B 136, BLOCK B, JJ COLONY, WAZIRPUR, DELHI
.... Petitioner
Vs.
1. SH. BHARAT BHUSHAN, S/O. SH. SATPAL KAMRA,
R/O. 148/4 BUDRGAPURI XTENSION, SHAHDARA, DELHI
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
88, JANPATH, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI
3. SH. LAKHVINDER SINGH, S/O. SH. ARJUN SINGH
R/O.VILLAGE BHAIJI KI NAROLI, PS BHAI JI KI NAROLI
TEHSIL GOLACHIRA, DISTT. KAITHAL, HARYANA
.....Respondents.
Present: Mr. Amarnath, Advocate for petitioner .
None for respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 19.12.06
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 15.05.2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 16.05.2015
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner is a retired official of Delhi Police. According to Suit no. 457/09 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan page 1 of pages 8 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan him, in the intervening night of 1516.08.2006, at about 03.00 a.m., he was deputed at Singhu Border near Toll Tax, GT Karnal Road, Alipur, Delhi. He was checking vehicles passing through that way. At about 03.00 a.m. a truck bearing no. HR 39A 5765 being driven at high speed rashly and negligently came from side of Toll tax office and hit him. As a result of forceful impact, he fell down on road and suffered serious injuries all over his body.
2. Contending that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of HR 39A 5765 i.e. resp. no.1. It was insured with resp. no.3. Petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ (rupees five lacs) as compensation from the respondents alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.
3. On an application filed by Sh. V.K. Gupta, Advocate for resp no. 2 the name of Sh. Kulwant Singh as a respondent was deleted. The latter was substituted by Bharat Bhushan vide order of this court dated 23.03.2007. On 16.05.2007, driver Lakhwinder Singh was also impleaded as resp .no.3, by another order of this court.
4. Resp no. 1 and 2 contested the claim. According to resp. no. 1 no such accident took place by his vehicle i.e. truck number HR 39A 5765. Resp. no. 2 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ) claimed that Suit no. 457/09 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan page 2 of pages 8 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan same was not liable to pay any compensation as the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 15.01.2008.
(i) Whether on on 16.08.2006 at about 03.00 a.m. At Singhu Border, Petitioner was hit by truck no HR 39A 5765 which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver and caused injuries to him? OPP.
(ii) Whether driver of the offending vehicle held valid driving licence, permit etc? OPPR1 & 3
(iii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for, if so, from whom of respondents? OPP.
(iv) Relief.
6. In order to prove his case, petitioner examined himself as PW1. He also examined Dr. J. P. Singh as PW2, Dr. Jitender Pal Singh as PW3 and Dr. B Kanhar from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital as PW4. Observing that there remained some discrepancies in the medical treatment papers, i.e. Dr. Jitender Pal Singh was allowed to be re examined. Perhaps mistakenly he was numbered as PW3, Dr. Suit no. 457/09 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan page 3 of pages 8 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan J. P. Singh and Dr. Jitender Pal Singh are one and same person. None from respondents opted to lead any evidence.
7. I heard ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner. None appeared for other respondents at the time of arguments. My findings issuewise are as under: ISSUE NO.1
8. Petitioner in his affidavit (Ex. PW 1/A) reiterated facts of his case, as narrated discussed above. According to him, when he was checking vehicles, a truck HR 39A 5765 driven at high speed, rashly and negligently came there from toll tax side and hit him. As a result of which, he fell down on road and sustained multiple fractures in his left leg apart from other injuries on various parts of his body. The accident took place due to sole negligence of said driver. He was taken to BJRM Hospital from the spot. He remained admitted there and was discharged on 19.10.2006.
9. The petitioner is injured and hence a natural eye witness of accident. I have no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Even otherwise, the fact that such an accident took place is not denied by respondents. None from respondents tried to rebut deposition of PW1. No contradiction appeared in his statement despite cross Suit no. 457/09 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan page 4 of pages 8 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan examination by ld. Counsel for resp. no.3. Considering all this, I have no hesitation in coming to conclusion that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing HR 29A 5765 by i.e. resp .no. 3 Lakhwinder Singh. This issue is therefore, decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents. ISSUE NO.2
10. As mentioned above, according to resp. no. 3, driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence, at the time of accident in question. Needless to say that onus to prove this issue was upon respondents. No evidence was adduced to prove this fact. In this way, it is not established that the resp. no. 3 was not having any valid driving licence. Even otherwise, if resp. no.2. i.e. the Insurance Company, thinks that resp. no. 3 was not having valid driving licence, same has right to recover amount of compensation, from other respondents as per law. This issue is therefore decided against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.3
11. As discussed earlier, it is well established that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of resp .no.3. It is not denied that the offending vehicle was owned by resp. no. 1 Suit no. 457/09 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan page 5 of pages 8 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan and insured with resp. no. 2. Moreover, petitioner suffered injuries in that accident. In such circumstances, the petitioner is well within his rights to claim compensation. Resp .no. 3, being insurer is liable to pay compensation.
12. According to petitioner, he suffered multiple fractures on his left leg and foot apart from other injuries. Dr. B Kanhar (PW4) brought record about treatment of the petitioner. Same is Ex. PW 1/1. According to said witness, petitioner remained admitted in BJRM Hospital from 16.08.06 to 09.10.06. He suffered crush injuries on left foot. MLC of the said patient is Ex. PW 4/2. Medical papers from Rao Tula Ram hospital from where also petitioner got treatment are Ex. PW 1/1. According to their report, petitioner suffered 50% permanent physical impairment, in relation to his left lower limb.
13. As per petitioner, he spent a sum of Rs. 40,000/ on his medical treatment, Rs. 20,000/ on conveyance and Rs. 20,000/ on special diet. He still requires Rs. 50,000/ in near future for his further treatment. He was posted as Addl. Subordinate Inspector (ASI ) and was earning Rs. 15000/ p.m. He remained absent from his work for 286 days. He took 144 days commuted leaves and 142 days leave without pay. ld. Counsel submits that petitioner would Suit no. 457/09 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan page 6 of pages 8 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan have got Rs. 1,43,000/ as salary for these 286 days, if he had not met with this accident. This amount i.e. Rs. 1,43,000/ (loss of earning) is granted in favour of the petitioner.
14. As mentioned above, according to petitioner, he spent Rs.
40,000/ on the treatment. Medical bills of Rs. 2474/ are put on file. Admittedly petitioner was treated in government hospital. This amount i.e. Rs. 2747/ is allowed for medicines. Although there is no evidence, apart from deposition of petitioner that he spent Rs. 20,000/ on conveyance and Rs. 20,000/ on special diet, seeing for the injuries having been suffered by the petitioner, aforesaid amounts do not appear unreasonable, same are thus allowed to him.
15. It is contended by ld. counsel for the petitioner that latter suffered loss of income to the tune of Rs. 8,91,000/ . As mentioned above, petitioner was serving Delhi Police. It is not plea of petitioner even that he has been demoted or his salary is reduced due to this accident. Being a government servant, he is entitled to all perks and other benefits including salary despite the said accident. I find no reason to grant compensation of Rs. 8,91,000/ as claimed by ld. counsel.
16. Petitioner is aged 53 years. Apart from the amount of Suit no. 457/09 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan page 7 of pages 8 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan compensation as mentioned above, petitioner is allowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for pain and suffering as well as Rs.1,00,000/ for loss of enjoyment of life making a total of Rs. 3,85,474/ , details of which is given as under :
Loss of income during leave of 286 days : Rs 1,43,000.00 Medical bills : Rs. 2474.00 Pain and Suffering : Rs. 1,00,000.00 Conveyance : Rs. 20,000.00 Special Diet : Rs. 20,000.00 Loss of enjoyment of life : Rs. 1,00,000.00 : Total Rs. 3,85,474.00 ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
17. Petition in hand is thus allowed. Resp. no. 2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,85,474.00 to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till the realisation of the said amount.
18. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI) th Court on 16 Day of May 2015 PO,MACT- NORTH,ROHINI, DELHI/16.05.2015 Suit no. 457/09 Kanhiya Lal V. Bharat Bhushan page 8 of pages 8