Delhi District Court
Smt. Seema vs Kakku on 26 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH SANJAY SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL : EAST DISTRICT :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Suit No.: 89/16
Unique Case I.D No.: MACT/12071/2014
1. Smt. Seema
W/o Late Sanjay
..... Wife
2. Baby Shivani
D/o Late Sanjay
..... Daughter
3. Kumari Nandani
D/o Late Sanjay
..... Daughter
4. Baby Payal
D/o Late Sanjay
..... Daughter
5. Sh. Bake Lal
S/o Late Lokman
..... Father
6. Smt. Chandrawati
W/o Sh. Bake Lal
..... Mother
Residents of:
H. No. 374, Lakshmanpura,
Vill. Haranaul, PS Sureer,
Distt. Mathura, U.P.
..... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Kakku
S/o Sh. Shreepat
R/o Vill. Satbaiya,
Distt. Ajamgarh, U.P.
Present Add:
H. No. E-73/A-568, Sanjay Colony,
Gokalpuri, Delhi-110094
..... Driver
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 1 of 22
2. Bhup Singh
S/o Sh. Natthu Singh
R/o H. No. V-103/2, Block-A,
Ghonda Village, Delhi
..... Owner
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg,
near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi,
Mumbai
..... Insurer
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.04.2014
Date of Reserving : 07.07.2018
Date of Judgment : 26.07.2018
JUDGMENT
PLEADINGS:
1. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, (the deceased), about 36 years, died consequent to multiple injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at 6.20 p.m. on 25.02.2014 on Noida-Delhi Link Road, in front of Mayur Vihar-I Metro Station, Delhi while riding motorcycle described as Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No. DL 3S AH 3803 (motorcycle) involved in an accident with Mini Bus described as Force Traveler bearing registration No. DL 1 VA 1318 (the mini bus) allegedly driven in high speed in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 1. The petitioners being wife, minor children and parents of the deceased instituted an accident claim case in the wake of detailed accident report (DAR) instituted under section 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) in the context of FIR No. 141/14 registered under section 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS Pandav Nagar, Delhi impleading, inter alia, the driver, owner and insurer of the mini bus as the respondents.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 2 of 22
2. The respondent No. 1 and 2, in their joint written statement, contended that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. They contended that the motorcycle of the deceased slipped and the respondent No. 1 applied the brakes but the mini bus was in motion and it struck the motorcycle of the deceased.
3. The respondent No. 3 / insurer, in its written statement, conceded that the mini bus was insured with it for the period from 24.02.2014 to 23.02.2015. it contended that the respondent No. 1 was not holding driving license to drive the mini bus. It further contended that the mini bus was put on the public road without permit.
4. The petitioners, in the replication to the written statement of the respondent No. 1 and 2, controverted that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased.
5. The petitioners, in the replication to the written statement of respondent No. 3 / insurer contended that the driving license of the respondent No. 1 is on the file.
6. The respondent No. 3 / insurer moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking incorporation of the plea that the previous policy issued by National Insurance Co. in respect of the mini bus was fake. It contended that the respondent No. 2 procured the insurance policy from it by misrepresentation of the fact. It also contended that a criminal complaint vide DD No. 71B dated 08.10.2014 was also lodged with PS Lajpat Nagar in this regard.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 3 of 22
7. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the respondent No. 3 / insurer was allowed vide order dated 18.03.2016.
8. In its amended written statement, the respondent No. 3 / insurer contended that the previous policy issued by National Insurance Co. in respect of the mini bus was fake. It contended that it had issued the policy for the period from 24.02.2014 to 23.02.2015 under good faith and belief that the information furnished by the respondent No. 2 was true and correct. It contended that the insurance policy was void on the ground that it was obtained by non-disclosure of a material fact or misrepresentation of the fact which was false in material particular. It contended that it amounted to active concealment of fact. It contended that a criminal complaint was filed by Mr. Ipsit Panda vide DD No. 71B dated 08.10.2014 and on that basis, FIR No. 246/15 was lodged under section 420/468/471 IPC in PS Lajpat Nagar.
9. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 and 2 moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of their written statement which application was allowed vide order dated 13.07.2016.
10. In their amended written statement, the respondent No. 1 and 2 contended that the mini bus was earlier insured with HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 18.09.2012 to 17.09.2013.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 4 of 22 ISSUES:
11. On the pleadings, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the deceased Sanjay suffered fatal injuries in a road accident on 25.02.2014 involving vehicle i.e. Mini Bus bearing registration No. DL 1 VA 1318 driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner?
(OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iii) Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE:
12. PW-1 S.P. Kakkar, Manager (Personal), Neutech Security Printers, 23, DLF Industrial Estate, Phase-II, Faridabad, Haryana brought salary / wages file for the month of February, 2014 Ex.PW1/1. He deposed that the deceased was drawing gross salary in the sum of Rs. 13,600/-. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that the deceased was working in their company since 01.02.2014. He deposed that earlier, the deceased worked in their company since 2005 but he had left the company in the year 2012.
13. PW-2 HC Ravinder Kumar, PS Pandav Nagar, Delhi proved DD No. 27A Ex.PW2/A and FIR Ex.PW2/B.
14. Smt. Seema, wife of the deceased appeared as PW-
3. She filed evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A. She relied on voter I-cards of the petitioner No. 1, 5 and 6 Ex.PW3/2 (colly), birth certificates of the petitioner No. 2 to 4 Ex.PW3/3, detailed accident report (DAR) Ex.PW3/5, MLC and PM report Ex.PW3/6, salary slip for the month of February, 2014 of the deceased Ex.PW1/1, and copy of ration card Mark 'A'.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 5 of 22
15. PW-4 Rakesh Sharma deposed the manner of the accident.
16. PW-5 Taslimuddin Siddiqui, Technical Expert inspected the mini bus and the motorcycle. He deposed about the number and nature of damages suffered by the mini bus and the motorcycle.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:
17. The respondent No. 2 / owner of the mini bus appeared as R2W1. He filed evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R2W1/A. He deposed that on 25.02.2014, the mini bus was brought on road from Noida, U.P. to Delhi for some repair work and no passenger was sitting inside at the time of the accident. He deposed that the vehicle was not being used for commercial purpose at the time of the accident. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the mini bus was plying without permit at the time of the accident. He deposed that since 17.09.2013, there was no insurance policy in respect of the mini bus till the commencement of insurance policy issued by the respondent No. 3 / ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
18. R2W2 Shyama Charan Vats, Manager (legal), HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. proved the insurance policy in respect of the mini bus for the period from 18.09.2012 to 17.09.2013 Ex.R2W2/1.
19. R3W1 Anil Dhamija, Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. proved that insurance policy bearing No. 35370131120200005788 was issued in name of Sh. Balwant Singh in respect of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR 22 B 2132 for the period from 30.03.2013 to 29.03.2014 Ex.R3W1/1.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 6 of 22
20. R3W1 Anil Dhamija deposed that insurance policy bearing No. 35370131120200005788 was never issued by his branch in the name of Mr. Bhup Singh Public School for the period from 21.03.2013 to 20.04.2014 Ex.R3W1/2. He deposed that the said policy is fake.
21. R3W2 Ipsit Panda, Unit Sales Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R3W2/A. He relied on insurance policy Ex.R3W2/1. He deposed that on investigation, the insurance policy bearing No. 35370131120200005788 was not issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 24.02.2013 to 23.02.2014 Ex.R3W1/1. He relied on DD No. 71B dated 08.10.2014 Ex.R3W2/2 and a copy of FIR No. 246/15 under section 420/468/471 IPC PS Lajpat Nagar Ex.R3W2/3.
22. R3W3 Gautam Bhatnagar, Manager (legal), ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R3W3/A. He relied on insurance policy issued by ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. Ex.R3W2/1. He deposed that the mini bus was driven without permit at the time of the accident and it amounted to violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.
23. R3W4 Vivek Sharma, Manager, ICLM Investigation, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R3W4/A. He deposed that the respondent No. 2 submitted fake policy Ex.R3W1/1 allegedly issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 24.02.2013 to 23.03.2014 as roll over policy to get fresh insurance policy from ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 7 of 22
24. The tribunal examined SI Sanjiv Kumar as tribunal witness (TW-1). He was the first Investigating Officer of the criminal case vide FIR No. 141/14 under section 279/304-A IPC PS Pandav Nagar. He proved a copy of DD No. 27A Ex.TW1/A, rukka Ex.TW1/B, site plan of the place of the accident Ex.TW1/C, seizure memos of the motorcycle and the mini bus Ex.TW1/D and Ex.TW1/E. He deposed that he alongwith Ct. Dinesh reached at the place of the accident. He deposed that he found a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 3S AH 3803 and a tourist vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1 VA 1318 in accidental condition. He deposed that driver of the mini bus ran away after leaving the vehicle at the place of the accident. He deposed that the motorcycle was found parked on the left side of the road and the mini bus was 70-80 meters ahead from the motorcycle.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
25. I have heard arguments of Sh. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners, Sh. V.S. Panwar, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and 2, and Sh. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 / insurer and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on the file of the tribunal.
ISSUE NO. 1:
26. In an action instituted on the principle of fault liability under section 166 of the MV Act, the petitioners must prove involvement of the offending vehicle, and rash and negligent driving thereof. Standard of proof is not that stringent as that applied in criminal cases that is proof beyond reasonable doubts.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 8 of 22
27. In claims founded on tort liability, the principle of preponderance of probabilities applies.
28. The petitioners, in order to prove rash and negligent driving of the mini bus, examined PW-4 Rakesh Sharma. He deposed as under:
"I am running my business at Noida. Around 2 ½ - 3 years back at around 6.30 p.m., I was returning from my office, Noida to Shahdara by driving my car. As I reached near Mayur Vihar Flyover, I saw one motorcycle and one RTV were plying parallel to each other with RTV to the right side of the motorcycle. Both vehicle were at normal speed and I saw the said motorcyclist having collided with the RTV. The driver of RTV seeing the accident fled away from the spot. The motorcyclist fell down on the road. I chased the RTV and attempted to stop him forcibly, a little before Akshardham Flyover but the driver of the RTV slowed down a while and then sped away. I could not see the driver of the RTV. I called at 100. The police came near Akshardham Flyover where the RTV was apprehended by me and then I narrated the whole incident. Thereafter, I went to my home. I can't say who was negligent in the said accident as I was also driving at that time."
29. Banking upon the deposition of PW-4 Rakesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No.
1. He submitted that the respondent No. 1 was driving the mini bus in normal speed. He submitted that the deceased was driving the motorcycle on the left side of the mini bus in violation of traffic rule and regulation and collided against the mini bus. He submitted that the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased as he collided with the mini bus. He submitted that the petitioners have failed to prove rash and negligent driving of the mini bus.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 9 of 22
30. It may be noted that PW-4 Rakesh Sharma made call at 100. He reported the accident to the police control room (PCR). It may be further noted that the evidence of PW-4 Rakesh Sharma is relevant to the extent that an accident did happen near Mayur Vihar Flyover involving the motorcycle and the mini bus. It may be further noted that it is relevant to the extent that the respondent No. 1 after the accident fled from the place of the accident. He chased the respondent No. 1 and attempted to stop him but he managed to escape.
31. TW-1 SI Sanjiv Kumar is the first Investigating Officer. He reached at the place of the accident on receipt of DD No. 27A Ex.PW2/A. He found the motorcycle and the mini bus in accidental condition at the place of the accident. He did not find the respondent No. 1 at the place of the accident. He made mention of this fact in rukka Ex.TW1/B. He prepared site plan of the place of the accident Ex.TW1/C. He seized the motorcycle and the mini bus vide seizure memos Ex.TW1/D and Ex.TW1/E respectively.
32. It is therefore, proved that an accident was caused involving the motorcycle and the mini bus at the place of the accident. It is proved that the mini bus was seized vide seizure memo Ex.TW1/E from the place of the accident. These facts have also not disputed by the respondent No. 1 and 2.
33. The fact that PW-4 Rakesh Sharma has not attributed any negligence to the respondent No. 1 in driving the mini bus is inconsequential. It may be relevant to note that the respondent No. 1 and 2 in their written statement categorically stated the mode of the accident.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 10 of 22
34. For the sake of clarity, para No. 4 of the preliminary objections in the written statement of the respondent No. 1 and 2 is as under:
"That the petitioners have no right to get any compensation from answering respondents as accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased as he was driven his motorcycle without caring the traffic rules and his motorcycle was slipped and the respondent No. 1 applied the brake but as the vehicle of the respondent No. 1 was in motion, struck with the motorcycle of the deceased and accident was caused. It is further submitted that at that time, the respondent No. 1 was having the valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question, so the answering respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner."
(emphasis supplied)
35. It is therefore, evident that the mini bus had hit the motorcycle leading to the instant death of the deceased. If the respondent No. 1 was driving the mini bus in normal speed, there is no explanation as to why he could not stop the mini bus and avoid the collision. The respondent No. 1 has neither stated nor deposed as to why he could not avoid the collision. If there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1, there is no explanation as to why he did not stop the mini bus and rendered immediate help to the deceased. The respondent No. 1 escaped from the place of the accident and it points to his culpability. The motorcycle and the mini bus were seized from the place of the accident. According to mechanical inspection report (MIR) of the mini bus, it is evident that its front bumper, left head-light, left corner light, left and right front fender and left side mirror suffered damage. The motorcycle suffered as many as 6 damages on its various parts due to the impact.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 11 of 22
36. The nature of the damages suffered by the motorcycle and the mini bus would demonstrate the ferocity of the impact. The respondent No. 1 was driving a commercial vehicle on the city road. He is a professional driver. He was expected to drive the mini bus in a controllable speed. The very fact that the respondent No. 1 could not control the mini bus and avoid the accident is evidence of rash and negligent driving of the mini bus.
37. It may be relevant to note that the deceased was examined on 25.02.2014 at 8.00 p.m. in Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi-110091 vide MLC Ex.PW3/6. He was declared 'brought dead'. According to post-mortem report, the deceased had as many as 7 external injuries. He suffered fracture of left clavicle, right radius and ulna, bilateral pelvis, right and left femur with hemorrhage. According to post-mortem report, the cause of death of the deceased was 'hemorrhagic shock consequent upon blunt force impact due to ante-mortem injuries recent in duration'. The number and nature of the injury suffered by the deceased leading to his death immediately after the accident would show that he was hit by the mini bus with a great force.
38. It is, therefore, proved that the deceased died in a motor vehicular accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the mini bus by the respondent No. 1.
39. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 12 of 22 ISSUE NO. 2:
40. The petitioners being wife, minor daughters and parents of the deceased are entitled to seek compensation for his death in the accident caused by the respondent No. 1. ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED:
41. First step towards computation of loss of dependency is the ascertainment of income of the deceased.
42. The case of the petitioners, as pleaded in the petition, was that the deceased was employed as a 'machine operator' in a printing press at salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The petitioners examined PW-1 S.P. Kakkar, Manager, Neutech Security Printers to prove the employment and salary of the deceased. He proved salary / wages file for the month of February, 2014 Ex.PW1/1. He deposed that the deceased was drawing gross salary in the sum of Rs. 13,600/- (including the PF amount of Rs. 780/-, ESI Rs. 213/-, labour welfare fund as Rs. 10/-). In his cross-examination, he deposed that the deceased was working in their company since 01.02.2014. He deposed that the deceased worked in their company since 2005 but he had left the company in the year 2012.
43. There is no reason to doubt the salary slip Ex.PW1/1. Accordingly, the gross income of the deceased is treated as his monthly income i.e. Rs. 13,600/- per month. DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL LIVING EXPENSES:
44. The deceased was survived by his wife, three minor daughters and parents. The deceased was survived by six dependents. Therefore, one-fourth of his income is deducted towards his personal living expenses.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 13 of 22 APPLICATION OF MULTIPLIER:
45. Smt. Seema, wife of the deceased (PW-3), in her affidavit Ex.PW3/A, deposed that the deceased was 35 years old. However, the petitioners have not led any evidence to prove the age of the deceased. In MLC Ex.PW3/6 and post- mortem report, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 36 years. In the absence of any evidence on the aspect of age of the deceased, the age of the deceased as mentioned in MLC Ex.PW3/6 and post-mortem report of the deceased is considered. (See: Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation versus Munni Devi & Ors., MAC APP. 609/2007 decided on 11.05.2016 and Shabrin & Ors. versus Lekha Parsad & Ors., FAO 402/2001 decided on 01.02.2016).
46. Therefore, multiplier of 15 as applicable to age group between 36 to 40 years would apply.
FUTURE PROSPECTS:
47. The deceased was employed with Neutech Security Printers 25 days before the date of the accident. Earlier, he left the said company in 2012. The nature of the employment cannot be treated as that of permanent nature. He was below 40 years. Following the ruling of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., there will be addition of income to the extent of 40%.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 14 of 22 LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
48. Applying the multiplier of 15 after making deduction to the extent of one-fourth from the income of the deceased and addition of 40% of future prospects, the loss of dependency is computed as (13,600 x 3 / 4 x 140 / 100 x 12 x 15) = Rs.
25,70,400/- (rounded of) = Rs. 25,71,000/-. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
49. As per dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.
40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- each on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses are added.
50. The compensation awarded to the petitioners is computed, as under:
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 25,71,000/-
2. Non-pecuniary (in view of Pranay Sethi (supra) Rs. 70,000/-
3. - Interim award Rs 50,000/-
Total Rs. 25,91,000/-
LIABILITY:
51. The respondent No. 3 / insurer pleaded breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy on the ground that the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving license, the mini bus was used on the public road without permit and the insurance policy was procured by the respondent No. 2 by furnishing a fake policy.
52. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 submitted that the driving license of the respondent No. 1 was issued by District Transport Office, Nagaland for the category of light motor vehicle (LMV), medium transport vehicle, heavy transport vehicle and heavy passengers vehicle on 28.05.2010.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 15 of 22
53. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 submitted that the said driving license was valid on the date of the accident. He submitted that the respondent No. 2 has not misrepresented any fact to the respondent No. 3 / insurer as the mini bus was not insured during the period from 17.09.2013 to 24.02.2014. He submitted that the mini bus was on the public road for the purpose of repair. He submitted that the mini bus was not being used for any commercial purpose at the time of the accident. He submitted that the mini bus was not carrying any passenger at the time of the accident. He relied on section 66 (3)(p) of M.V. Act that there is no necessity of permit for any transport vehicle when it was proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair.
54. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the respondent No. 1 was holding driving license No. 58622/MON/TV/2010 issued by District Transport Office, Nagaland for the category of light motor vehicle (LMV), medium transport vehicle (MTV), heavy transport vehicle (VTV) and heavy passengers vehicle (HPV). The said license was issued on 28.05.2010 having validity till 14.11.2015. The respondent No. 3 / insurer has not led any evidence to prove the contrary. Therefore, it is held that the respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving license to drive the mini bus.
55. In so far as contention of the insurance company that the insurance policy Ex.R3W2/1 was procured by the respondent No. 2 on the basis of fake insurance policy Ex.R3W1/1, it can be stated that such contention cannot be entertain for the reasons as under:
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 16 of 22
(a) The respondent No. 2 has not stated that he furnished the policy issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Ex.R3W1/2 to the respondent No. 3 / insurer as a roll over policy;
(b) There is no explanation as to why the respondent No. 3 / insurer did not verify about the authenticity of the policy issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at the time of issuing the current policy in favour of the respondent No. 2.
(c) Even otherwise, fabrication of a document purporting to be an insurance policy for earlier period cannot render the insurance cover issued for relevant period in operative. (Ref:
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
versus Suresh Kumar & Ors., MAC APP.
896/2014 decided on 09.05.2016).
56. However, there is merit in the contention of the respondent No. 3 / insurer that the mini bus was used on the public road without permit. According to the registration certificate, the mini bus is a light passenger vehicle. According to insurance policy Ex.R3W2/1, the policy is in respect of 'passenger carrying vehicles package policy'. It provides that the policy covers use only a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or a such carriage falling under Sub-
section 3 of section 66 of the M.V. Act, 1988.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 17 of 22
57. The respondent No. 2 has relied upon section 66 (3)
(p) of M.V. Act to contend that there was no necessity of permit as the mini bus was proceeding empty for purpose of repair. The tribunal does not find any merit in the contention of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, in his written statement, has not taken the plea that the mini bus was put on the public road for the purpose of repair. Moreover, the respondent No. 3 / insurer filed its written statement categorically pleading that the permit of the mini bus was not submitted and charge-sheet under section 192A of the M.V. Act was filed. Even then, the respondent No. 2, in its written statement, has not pleaded that the mini bus was put on the public road for the purpose of repair. The respondent No. 2 came forward with his case for the first time at the time of the evidence that the mini bus was brought on road from Noida, U.P. to Delhi for repair work and there was no passenger sitting inside it and it was not being used for commercial purpose. The evidence of the respondent No. 2 is without any foundation in his pleadings. Moreover, the respondent No. 2 is a resident of Delhi. The mini bus is registered at his Delhi address. He has not explained as to why the mini bus was coming from Noida, U.P. He has not explained as to where the mini bus was proceeding. He has not explained the nature of the mechanical problem in the mini bus. He has not explained as to what kind of repair was required. He has not led any evidence that the mini bus was in need of any repair work and for that purpose, it was proceeding to any particular workshop or service station. The plea of the respondent No. 2 is an after thought.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 18 of 22
58. The respondent No. 2 used the mini bus on the public road without permit. He has committed breach of fundamental term of the insurance policy. However, the insurance company shall pay the compensation to the petitioners in the first instance. The rights of the third party cannot be defeated. The interest of the insurance company can be secured by way of grant of recovery rights. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 / insurer shall pay the compensation to the petitioners. The respondent No. 3 / insurer is granted recovery rights against the respondent No. 1 and 2 for recovery of the compensation alongwith up to date interest paid by it to the petitioners.
AWARD
59. The petitioners are awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,91,000/- (after adjusting the interim amount already deposited and released to the petitioner) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition (17.04.2014) till the date of award. The respondent No. 3 / insurer shall deposit the award amount with the tribunal within 30 days and otherwise, the award amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. [See: judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.]
60. The respondent No. 3 / insurer shall be entitled to recover the award amount with up to date interest from the respondent No. 1 and 2. The respondent No. 1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount to the respondent No. 3 / insurer.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 19 of 22 APPORTIONMENT AND MODE OF DISBURSAL:
61. The petitioner No. 1 / wife, the petitioner No. 2 to 4 / minor daughters and the petitioner No. 5 and 6 / parents of the deceased shall be entitled to the awarded amount in the ratio of 50:10:10:10:10:10.
62. The petitioner No. 1 / Smt. Seema shall be entitled to amount of Rs. 12,95,500/- alongwith corresponding interest, being 50% of the award amount. An amount of Rs. 2,95,500/- will be released to the petitioner No. 1 / Smt. Seema and balance amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- will be secured in the form of fixed deposit receipts for the period, as under:
Sl. No. Amount Period of FDR
1. Rs. 1,00,000/ 6 month
2. Rs. 1,00,000/ 12 months
3. Rs. 1,00,000/ 18 months
4. Rs. 1,00,000/ 24 months
5. Rs. 1,00,000/ 30 months
6. Rs. 1,00,000/ 36 months
7. Rs. 1,00,000/ 42 months
8. Rs. 1,00,000/ 48 months
9. Rs. 1,00,000/ 54 months
10. Rs. 1,00,000/ 60 months
11. Interest component 72 months
63. An amount of Rs. 2,59,100/- each alongwith
corresponding interest, being 10% of the award amount, will be secured in the form of fixed deposit receipt in the name of the petitioner No. 2 / Baby Shivani, the petitioner No. 3 / Kumari Nandani and the petitioner No. 4 / Baby Payal till they attain the age of majority.
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 20 of 22
64. An amount of Rs. 59,100/- alongwith the accrued interest out of Rs. 2,59,100/-, being 10% of the award amount, will be released to the petitioner No. 5 / Sh. Bake Lal and balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- will be secured in the form of fixed deposit receipts, as under:
Sl. No. Amount Period of FDR
1. Rs. 50,000/- 6 months
2. Rs. 50,000/- 12 months
3. Rs. 50,000/- 18 months
4. Rs. 50,000/- 24 months
65. An amount of Rs. 59,100/- alongwith the accrued interest out of Rs. 2,59,100/-, being 10% of the award amount, will be released to the petitioner No. 6 / Smt. Chandra Wati and balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- will be secured in the form of fixed deposit receipts, as under:
Sl. No. Amount Period of FDR
1. Rs. 50,000/- 9 months
2. Rs. 50,000/- 15 months
3. Rs. 50,000/- 21 months
4. Rs. 50,000/- 27 months
66. Copy of award be supplied to the petitioners and the respondents for compliance. File be consigned to record room.
SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY
SHARMA
Location: East District,
SHARMA
Announced in the open Court
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Date: 2018.07.26 12:48:20 +0530
Sh. Sanjay Sharma
Dated: 26th July, 2018 Presiding Officer MACT (East)
Karkardooma Court, Delhi
Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 21 of 22
Suit No. 89/16
26.07.2018
Present : Sh. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Sh. V.S. Panwar, Advocate for R1 and R2.
Sh. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for R3 / Insurance Co.
Vide separate judgment, award is passed. To come up for compliance on 31.08.2018.
Sanjay Sharma PO MACT (East)/KKD Delhi/26.07.2018 Suit No.: 89/2016 Seema & Ors. vs Kakku & Ors. 22 of 22