Delhi District Court
Smt. Murti Devi W/O. Late Sh. Gunbir ... vs Manoj Kumar on 30 March, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF MR. RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI:
PO:MACT1 (NORTH): ROHINI: DELHI
Suit No. 86/2011
1. Smt. Murti Devi w/o. Late Sh. Gunbir Singh
2. Master Deepak, s/o. Late Sh. Gunbir Singh
(being minor through natural mother/ petitioner no.1)
3. Baby Nisha, d/o. Late Sh. Gunbir Singh
(being minor through Natural guardian i.e. mother petitioner
no.1)
4. Ms. Netu, d/o. LateSh. Gunbit Singh
5. Smt. Phoolpati, w/o. Sh.Chandan Singh
all r/o., House no. 1053A10655 Prem Nagar, Sonepat, Haryana.
.... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Manoj Kumar
S/o. Sh. Rajender Singh
r/o. Village Jatola District, Sonepat, Haryana
2. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
105106. Express (Arcade) H10, Netaji Subhash Palace,
Pitampura, Delhi.
.....Respondents.
Present: Mr. K. K. Kaushik, Advocate for petitioner .
Mr. A. K. Singh, Advocate for respondent no.3
(Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. )
Mr. Manoj Rana, Advocate for respondent no.2
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 30.08.2011
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 10.02.2015
Suit no. 86/11 Murti Devi V. Manoj Kumar page 1 of pages 9
2
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 30.03.2015
JUDGMENT
1. As per case of petitioner, on 15.12.2010at about 05.45 p.m., Sh.
Gunbir Singh (deceased) was returning to his house, on his motorcycle bearing no. HR11A7976. When he was near Ochandi Border, all of a sudden, Manoj Kumar (respondent no. 1 ) came there while driving a car bearing no. HR 51W 7729 rashly , negligently and at a fast speed. He hit that car in the motorcycle being driven by Sh. Gunbir Singh. The latter fell down on the ground. He was taken to MB hospital, where he was declared as dead. Respondent no. (Manoj Kumar) was arrested by police at spot and a case FIR no. 315/10 was registered in this regard in PS Bawana, Delhi, for the offence punishable u/s. 279/304A IPC.
2. Contending that the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1, who is also owner of said vehicle, it ( offending vehicle ) is insured with respondent no. 2. The petitioners, who are widow, children and mother of the deceased, claimed a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs as compensation, alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of this petition, till realisation of the awarded amount, on account of the death of Sh. Gunbir Singh, financial/material/care/love and affection, mental pain and agony, loss of expectancy, loss of future earning and other special and general Suit no. 86/11 Murti Devi V. Manoj Kumar page 2 of pages 9 3 damages, as admissible under the law.
3. Respondents contested the claim. Respondent no.1 though admitted himself to be owner as well as the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. HR 51W 7729, but, denied other allegations. Respondent no. 2 admitted that according to cover note under which vehicle no. HR 51W 7729 was insured with it, was valid from 13.12.2010 to 12.12.2011. This respondent denied its responsibility to pay compensation alleging that the owner of the said vehicle produced a manipulated insurance policy purported to have been issued by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, with which the said vehicle was insured, to avoid pre inspection of his vehicle.
4. On the basis of pleading of the parties, following issues were framed on 17.05.2012.
1. Whether the deceased expired on 15.12.2010 at 05.45 p.m. due to grievous injuries received in the roadside accident caused near Ouchandi Border, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of R1/driver of offending vehicle/Truck bearing registration no. HR 51W 7729? OPP.
2. Whether respondent no.1 is guilty of breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy? If so, its effect? OPR.
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents? OPP.
4. Relief.
5. In order to prove their claim, petitioners examined Smt. Murti (petitioner no. 1) as PW1 and Sh. Vinod Kumar as PW2. Respondent no. 2 examined Mr. Gajinder as RIW1.
Suit no. 86/11 Murti Devi V. Manoj Kumar page 3 of pages 9 4
6. I heard ld. counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. My findings issuewise are as under:
7. ISSUE NO. 1.
Smt. Murtil (PW1) is the wife of the deceased Guvneer Singh. She reiterated facts of case in her affidavit (Ex.P 1/A). According to her, her husband (deceased) was working as a Mason, with Sh. Sushil Kumar, a Government Contractor . He was earning Rs. 11000/ to 13000/ per month and his income was increasing day by day, due to his hard work and honesty. He used to give Rs. 10,000/ per month to his wife i.e. Pw 1 for daytoday expenses. There is history of longevity of life in his family as his mother is 90 years of age and still alive. The victim would have lived upto the age of 90 years and could have earned more than one crore, in his life.
8. Sh. Vinod Kumar (PW2) claims himself to be an eye witness of the accident. According to him, on 15.12.2010, at about 05.45 p.m., Gunbir Singh was going on his motorcycle bearing no. HR 11A 7976 driving it properly, following rules and regulations of traffic. When he reached near Ouchandi Border, respondent no. 1 came there driving vehicle No. HR 51 W 7729 (Santro Xing Car) very rashly and at a fast speed. It hit the motorcycle of the victim. The latter was taken to MB Hospital, where he was declared as brought dead. After registration of the case i.e. FIR 315/2010, IO AIS Shiv Narain recorded his statement. During his cross examination it is disclosed by Pw2 that Suit no. 86/11 Murti Devi V. Manoj Kumar page 4 of pages 9 5 the deceased was previously known to him. Public persons gathered at the spot after the accident, called the police. Police apprehended the driver i.e. Respondent no. 1 at spot. The offending Car, which hit the motorcycle of the victim, was being driven at a speed of 80100 kmph and it hit motorcycle of the victim from behind.
9. No contradictions appeared in the statements of PW1 or PW2. Sh. Vinod Kumar(PW2)is an eye witness of the accident. I have no reason to disbelieve his testimony. The same is taken as true, it is clear that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. It is not established on record that the victim was going at wrong side. To hit a vehicle from its behind shows in itself that driver of other vehicle was rash or negligent unless it is proved that driver of said vehicle applied sudden brakes. There is no such plea in this case. Moreover, as per PWs offending vehicle was being driven at speed of 80100 kmph. All this shows that driver of offending vehicle was rash and negligent.
10. Although the factum of death of Sh. Gunbir Singh on 05.12.2010 and his having suffered injuries in that accident is not disputed during deliberations, same are well proved from the statement of PW1 as well as P2 as discussed above. Issue no.1 is thus decided in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2
11. According to respondent no. 2, respondent no. 1 manipulated Suit no. 86/11 Murti Devi V. Manoj Kumar page 5 of pages 9 6 previous insurance policy issued by Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company, to avoid pre inspection of his vehicle. Said respondent examined Sh. Gajinder in evidence. The latter, in his affidavit sworn on oath that their company issued a notice to respondent no.1, copy of which is R2W1/A. The policy issued by their company was void ab initio as the previous insurance cover allegedly issued by Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company limited, on the basis of which there company issued insurance policy was fake. Respondent no. 2 did not examine any witness from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited who could verify any such manipulation and hence, failed to prove said contention.
12. As discussed above, it is well proved on file that Sh. Gunbir Singh died in accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 who was the driver as well as the owner of the offending Car i.e. no. DL 51W 7729 and the said vehicle was insured with respondent no.
2. Petitioner Smt. Murti Devi is stated to be the wife of the deceased. Master Deepak and Baby Nisha and Neetu are children and Smt. Phulpati (petitioner no.5) is the mother of the deceased. According to PW1, her husband Gunbir Singh was only bread earner in their family. In this way, all the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation for the death of their only bread earner Sh. Gunbir Singh.
13. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioners.
Suit no. 86/11 Murti Devi V. Manoj Kumar page 6 of pages 9 7 ISSUE NO. 3:
As per Smt. Murti (petitioner no. 1), her husband was working as a mason with Sh. Sushil Kumar, a Government contractor. He was earning Rs. 1113,000/ per month and his income was increasing day by day due to his hard working and honesty. He used to give Rs. 10,000/ to his wife (petitioner no.1) for day to day expenses. It is contended by ld counsel for respondent that there is no evidence on file to verify aforesaid facts. For the sake of arguments, even if deceased Gunbir Singh is taken as an unskilled labourer, he can be presumed to be earning Rs. 5278/ i.e minimum wage on the day of accident i.e 15.12.10. so far as plea of the petitioner that the income of deceased would have increased day by day, due to hard work and honesty. There is no evidence in this regard at the same time. Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the wages of even workers are often increased due to inflation or devaluation of rupee. A glance at the minimum rates of wages would make it clear that the minimum wages of workers are increased constantly. For example, at the time accident in question, the minimum wage of an unskilled labourer was Rs. 5,278/ p.m w.e.f 1.2.2010. It was increased to Rs. 6084/ w.e.f 1.2.2011, Rs. 6,422/ w.e.f 1.4.11 and so on. Now, it at Rs. 8632/ w.e.f 1.10.2014. The minimum wages were never decreased. Court cannot remain oblivious of this fact. In this way, if at least 50% increase in the minimum wage is taken into account, the Suit no. 86/11 Murti Devi V. Manoj Kumar page 7 of pages 9 8 deceased (Sh. Gunbir Singh) can be presumed to be earning an average of Rs. 7917/ (Rs. 5278/ + Rs. 2639/) P.M in his life. This is much less than minimum of today i.e Rs. 8,632/ P.M. If 1/4th of this income is deducted as personal expenses of deceased, it comes to Rs. 5937.75/ per month. Applying multiplier of 14, deceased being aged 45 years at the time of accident, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 9,97,542/.
14. The petitioners are entitled to Rs. 1 lac each i.e Rs. 5 lac in total for loss of love and affection towards the deceased being wife, children and mother. Rs. 25,000/ as funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/ as loss of estate.
15. There is no denial that offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 2 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Same is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioners. However, it can claim from other respondents i.e driver cum owner as per law. This issue is therefore decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 4: (Relief)
16. The claim petitioner is thus allowed. Respondent no. 2 i.e Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. is asked to pay Rs. 15,32,542/ to the petitioner as compensation within 30 days from today, along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of this petition, till the day of realisation. Let 50% of the amount of compensation except Suit no. 86/11 Murti Devi V. Manoj Kumar page 8 of pages 9 9 Rs. 1 lac to each of petitioner for love and affection, be given to petitioner no. 1 Smt. Murti i.e wife of deceased and remaining amount be given to other petitioners equally. The amount coming to the share of minors be invested in the forms of FDRs with any nationalised bank till they attain majority. 50% of the amount coming to Smt. Murti be also invested in the FDRs for a period of two years, with any nationalized bank. The FDR's shall have no facility of loan, advance or premature withdrawal, without leave of the court. However, petitioners will be at liberty to withdraw the interest monthly/quarterly as per their option.
17. Petition is disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI)
Court on 30.03.2015: PO,MACT NORTH,ROHINI
DELHI 30.03.2015
Suit no. 86/11 Murti Devi V. Manoj Kumar page 9 of pages 9