Delhi District Court
Smt. Poonam Devi W/O Late Sh. Mange Ram vs Sh. Krishan Kumar S/O Sh. Sube Sing ... on 2 May, 2015
Poonam Devi v. Krishan Kumar
IN THE COURT OF MR. RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI: PO:MACT1
(NORTH): ROHINI: DELHI
Suit No. 1015/09
1. Smt. Poonam Devi W/o Late Sh. Mange Ram
2. Ms. Preeti D/o Late Sh. Mange Ram
3. Ms. Shital D/o Late Sh. Mange Ram
4. Master Rohit Singh S/o Late Sh. Mange Ram
5. Ms. Nikita D/o Late Sh. Mange Ram
6 Smt. Sunder Devi W/o Sh. Swaroop Singh (mother of Late Sh. Mange Ram)
7. Sh. Swaroop Singh (father of Late Sh. Mange Ram)
All R/o 146, Harijan Wali Gali, Village Chandpur Dabas, Delhi81.
.... Petitioners
Vs.
1. Sh. Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Sube Sing (Driver & Owner)
R/o V.P.O Shadipur, Near ITI, Sonipat, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana
2. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Through Manager).
2E/9, Jhandewalan Extension, Karol Bagh, Delhi.
Policy No. 4417524, Validity 24.07.08 - 23.07.09
.....Respondents
Present: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate for petitioner .
Mr. R.P. Mathur, Advocate for respondent no.3
(National Insurance Company Ltd. )
None for other respondents.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 28.07.09
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 18.04.2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 02.05.2015
Poonam Devi V. Krishan Kumar;FIR No.221/09;SUIT NO. 1015/09;PS VIJAY VIHAR;FATAL;PAGE1OF PAGES7
Poonam Devi v. Krishan Kumar
JUDGMENT
1. One Sh. Mange Ram is stated to have died in a vehicular accident in the morning of 15.07.09. This is a petition filed by Smt. Poonam Devi (widow), Ms. Preeti, Ms, Shital, Ms. Nikita (daughters), Master Rohit Singh (Son), Smt. Sunder Devi (mother) and Sh. Swaroop Singh (father) of said Mange Ram. As per petitioners, in the morning of 15.07.09, Sh. Mange Ram was going towards Begumpur, Via Sector24, Rohini on his Motor Cycle ( Hero Honda Passion) No. DL4SAU8756. At about 8:00 a.m. when he reached in front of Power House, Sector24, Begumpur Road, Maruti Wagon R No. HR10K8546 being driven by respondent No.1 (Krishan Kumar) at a very high speed, rashly and negligently came there and hit motor bike of Mange Ram. Due to great impact, the latter fell down on road and suffered severe injuries. He was taken to Brahm Shakti Hospital, Budh Vihar, where he was declared as dead.
2. Contending that offending vehicle was driven and owned by respondent No.1 (Krishan Kumar) and insured with respondent no. 2, the petitioners sought a compensation of Rs.60, 00,000/ (rupees sixty lacs only) on account of unnatural and sudden death of their beloved (Mange Ram) in the accident in question, mental pain and agony, loss of love and affection, loss of company, loss of income, loss of future income, expenses on medical treatment, funeral expenses etc. Poonam Devi V. Krishan Kumar;FIR No.221/09;SUIT NO. 1015/09;PS VIJAY VIHAR;FATAL;PAGE2OF PAGES7 Poonam Devi v. Krishan Kumar
3. Respondents contested the claim by filing written statements. According to respondent no.1, it was victim/ deceased himself who was driving his motorcycle in complete violation of traffic rules, at a very high speed and in dangerous manner. He (Respondent no.1) is an experienced driver and had parked his car in correct side of the road. The victim hit his motor bike on the back side of his car, causing damage to it. Respondent no. 2 also claimed that the victim was negligent in his driving and hence quantum of compensation is liable to be slashed down accordingly.
4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed on 11.05.2010:
(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Mange Ram s/o Sh. Swaroop Sing expired due to the fatal injuries received in the road sided accident on 15.07.2009 at about 8:00 a.m. near Power House, Sector 24 to Begumpur Road, Vijay Vihar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1 of offending vehicle No. HR10K8546? OPP.
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for, if so to what extent and from which of the respondents? OPP.
(iii) Relief.
5. In order to prove their case, petitioners examined Smt. Poonam Devi ( petitioner no.1) as PW1, Sh. Hansraj as PW2 and Sh. Girja Shanker Poonam Devi V. Krishan Kumar;FIR No.221/09;SUIT NO. 1015/09;PS VIJAY VIHAR;FATAL;PAGE3OF PAGES7 Poonam Devi v. Krishan Kumar Sharma as PW3. None from respondents opted to lead any evidence. I heard Ld. counsels on behalf of petitioners and of respondent no.2. My findings issue wise are as under: ISSUE NO.1
6. Petitioner Smt. Poonam Devi in her affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) reiterated facts of her case. According to her, her husband was taken to Brahm Shakti Hospital, Budh Vihar, after accident where he was declared as dead, after some time. Postmortem was conducted in S.G. M. Hospital, Mangolpuri on 15.07.09. Sh. Girija Shanker Sharma (PW3) is stated to be an eye witness of accident. According to him, on 15.07.09 at about 8:00 a.m. he left his house to visit his lawyer. He was in his own car ( Maruti Alto). When he reached Prahlad Pur Mor (turn) he saw a white car (Wagon R ) coming from Haryana side. It was at a high speed and took a sudden left turn, causing a motorcyclist to fall. The motorcyclist fell down on the road and sustained serious injuries. Some other car came from behind and took injured/deceased to hospital. The offending var was being driven by Krishan Kumar whom he saw after getting down from his car. His statement was recorded by police.
7. No contradictions appeared in the statement of PW1 or PW3, particularly the later i.e. PW3, who is an eye witness of accident I have no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Even otherwise, as mentioned earlier, Poonam Devi V. Krishan Kumar;FIR No.221/09;SUIT NO. 1015/09;PS VIJAY VIHAR;FATAL;PAGE4OF PAGES7 Poonam Devi v. Krishan Kumar happening of said accident is not denied by respondent no.1. Trite it to say that, according to respondent no.1 said accident was caused due to negligence of deceased himself. No evidence was lead by any of respondents to prove said fact. Considering all this, I have no hesitation in coming to conclusion that accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of car (Wagon R) No. HR1058546 by respondent no.1.
8. Apart from deposition of PW1 and PW3, police filed accident information report alongwith copy of FIR, MLC of victim Mange Ram showing injuries having been caused to him as well as postmortem report of victim Mange Ram, very filed injuries and death of said Mange Ram. Considering all this, I have no hesitation in coming to conclusion that accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 and victim Mange ram died due to injuries having suffered in the accident. This issue is therefore decided in favour of petitioner and against respondent no.1.
ISSUE NO.2
9. As discussed above, Sh. Mange Ram died in accident in question due to rash and negligent driving of resp. no.1. As per the case of the petitioner, Smt. Poonam Devi is the wife/ widow, ms. Preeti, Sheetal and Nikita are daughters, Master Rohit is son, Smt. Sunder Devi is mother and Sh. Swaroop Singh is the father of the deceased. This fact is not dipsuted Poonam Devi V. Krishan Kumar;FIR No.221/09;SUIT NO. 1015/09;PS VIJAY VIHAR;FATAL;PAGE5OF PAGES7 Poonam Devi v. Krishan Kumar during deliberations. Considering all this, petitioners are well within their rights to get the compensation.
10. Victim, (Sh. Mange Ram) is stated to be employed as Dresser in ESI Hospital, Rohini, Delhi at the time of the accident. Petitioners examined one Sh. Hansraj as PW2, who is employed as Assistant in ESI hospital. This witness brought service book and salary details of deceased Mange Ram. Summary of service record is Ex. Pw 2/A. According to salary certificate of July 2009, i.e. the month in which accident took place, victim Mange Ram was entitled to a salary of Rs. 16225/ . It is submitted by L.d Counsel for the petitioner that victim a permanent employee, the petitioners are entitled to have 50% as future prospects in counting of income of the deceased. Calculating in this way, loss comes to Rs. 24,337.50/. Keeping in view the large family, the victim can be presumed to have spent ¼ of his income on his personal expenses, which comes to Rs. 6,084.37/. In this way, the loss of income per month comes to Rs. 18,253.12/.
11. According to the service record, the deceased was born on 08.02.1971. Accordingly, he was aged 38 years and 5 months at the time of accident. A multiplier of 15 can be applied. Calculating in this way, loss of income comes to Rs. 18,253.12x12x15=32,85,561.60/.
12. Apart from all this, the petitioners are allowed Rs. 50,000/ each for love and affection towards the deceased, Rs. 25,000/ as funeral expenses, Poonam Devi V. Krishan Kumar;FIR No.221/09;SUIT NO. 1015/09;PS VIJAY VIHAR;FATAL;PAGE6OF PAGES7 Poonam Devi v. Krishan Kumar Rs. 10,000/ for loss of estate making a total of Rs. 36,70,561.60/ detailed as under: Loss of Income : Rs. 32,85,561.60 Love and Affection : Rs. 3,50,000.00 Funeral Expenses : Rs. 25,000.00 Loss of Estate : Rs. 10,000.00 Total : Rs. 36,70,561.60
13. There is no denial that the offending vehicle was insured with resp. no. 2, same is liable to pay compensation.
14. Petition in hand is thus allowed. Resp. no.2 is directed to pay Rs. 36,70,561.60/ to the petitioners within 30 days, from today alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of this petition, till the realisation of the amount. Out of the total amount of compensation, 50% be given to the petitioner no. 1, being widow of the victim. Remaining amount be divided among all other petitioners equally. 50% of the share of petitioner no.1 be invested in fixed deposit for a period of 2 years in any nationalised bank.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI)
Court on 2nd Day of May 2015 PO,MACT NORTH,ROHINI,
DELHI 02.05.2015
Poonam Devi V. Krishan Kumar;FIR No.221/09;SUIT NO. 1015/09;PS VIJAY VIHAR;FATAL;PAGE7OF PAGES7