Delhi District Court
Bibi Savana Khatoon W/O Late Sh.Mohd. ... vs Manoj on 10 April, 2015
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MR. RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI:
PO:MACT1 (NORTH): ROHINI: DELHI
Suit No. 903/08
1. Bibi Savana Khatoon W/o Late Sh.Mohd. Rozid Alam
2. Ms. Rubi D/o Late Sh.Mohd. Rozid Alam
3. Master Toshib S/o Late Sh.Mohd. Rozid Alam
4. Ms.Nazmeen D/o Late Sh.Mohd. Rozid Alam
All R/o Village Pooth Khurd, Delhi110039
Permanent Address: Village Dubeli, Post Badhai ,
Idgah District Bihar.
( Petitioners no. 2 to 4 being minor their mother & natural guardian
Bibi Savana Khatoon, petitioner no. 1).
......Petitioner.
1. Sh. Manoj S/o Late Sh. Devender Kumar
R/o H.No. 611, Village Khera Khurd,Delhi.
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Devender Kumar
R/o H.No. 611, Village Khera Khurd, Delhi.
2nd Address: Village & Post Office Ladrawan,
Tehsil Bahardur Garh, District Jhajjar,Haryana.
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate, PhaseIII,
New Delhi110020.
4. Budhni Khatoon W/o Late Sh. Sheikh Badlum
R/o Village Dubeli, Post Idgah,Distt.Punia, Bihar.
.......Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 27.03.2008
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 11.02.2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10.04.2015
Suit NO.903/08 Bibi Savana Khatoon Vs. Manoj
:2:
Present: Sh. Sumit Gupta Advocate for petitioner.
Sh.Yogesh Kumar Advocate for R1.
Sh. V.K. Puri for R3/ Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
None for respondent no. 2.
JUDGMENT:
1. Petitioner Bibi Savana Khatoon is widow, Ms. Rubi,Ms. Nazmeen are daughters and master Toshib is son of late Mohd. Rozid Alam stated to have been died in a vehicular accident on 18.01.2008. As per case of petitioners, on said day i.e. 18.01.08, Mohd. Rozid Alam was travelling in a tractor bearing Engine No. E2096535 & Chasis No. T2094084 as a labourer. The driver was driving it rashly and negligently and in a zigzag manner. He was requested repeatedly to drive moderately but he did not pay any heed. When said tractor reached at Sector3, DSIDC, Bawana, Delhi, the deceased was thrown on the road. He suffered injuries all over his body and succumbed to the same and died later on.
2. Contending that said tractor was being driven by Sh.Manoj (respondent no. 1) owned by Ashok Kumar ( respondent no. 2 and insured with Reliance General Insurance Company as ( respondent no. 3), petitioners claimed a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation from said respondents alongwith interest @ 18 % p.a. Suit NO.903/08 Bibi Savana Khatoon Vs. Manoj :3: from the date of filing this petition till realisation. Costs of suit U/s 166 of The Motor Vehicle's Act are also claimed by the petitioners. Petitioners impleaded Budhni Khatoon stated to be mother of deceased. As per ld. Counsel, he required to implead said Budhni Khatoon as a respondent as she did not opt to become a petitioner, otherwise nothing has been claimed against her.
3. Respondents contested the claim by filing written statements. As per R1 & R2, present petition was not maintainable as deceased Mohd. Rozid Alam was not employed with respondent no. 1 as a labourer . According to respondent no. 3. same was not liable to pay any compensation as the factum of accident was never intimated to it by respondent no. 2 i.e. owner of vehicle. Moreover, driver of offending tractor was not holding any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.
4. Respondent no. 4 in her written statement did not object the amount of compensation to the petitioner but claimed compensation for herself also stating that she was mother of deceased.
5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed on 11.08.2009:
1. Whether the deceased Mohd. Rozid Alam S/o Late Sheikh Badlum received fatal injuries in the motor vehicle accident caused by Suit NO.903/08 Bibi Savana Khatoon Vs. Manoj :4: offending vehicle occurred on 18.01.08 at 9 a.m. at Sector 3, DSIDC, Bawana, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of R1/driver of offending vehicle (Tractor) bearing engine no. E2096535 & Chasis No. T2094084?OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for, if so to what extent and from which of the respondents?OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In order to prove their case, petitioners examined Bibi Savana Khatoon ( petitioner no. 1) as PW1 and Mohd. Hashim as PW2. Respondent no. 3 examined Sh. Brij Pal an Asstt. from the office of MLO , Wazirpur, Delhi as R3W1 and Sh. Naveen Goel Deputy its Manager as R3W2. Other respondents did not lead any evidence.
7. I heard ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of parties. My findings issue wise are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1:
8. The petitioner Bibi Savana Khatoon in her affidavit filed in evidence i.e. Ex.PW2/A reiterated the facts of her case. Mohd. Hashim ( PW2) is stated be an eye witness of accident. It is deposed on oath by this witness that on 18.01.08 at about 9 a.m., he was travelling in a tractor alongwith Mohd. Rozid Alam ( deceased). They were going towards Khera Khurd from Village Pooth. Both of them Suit NO.903/08 Bibi Savana Khatoon Vs. Manoj :5: were working together on said tractor. Deceased Mohd. Rozid Alam was sitting on left side of tractor beside driver Manoj. Manoj was driving the said tractor on very high speed. When they reached at Sector3, Bawana, Industrial Area, there were lots of potholes on the road. In order to avoid holes, respondent no. 1 was driving it in a zig zag manner, despite their request to drive slowly, Mohd. Rozid Alam fell down from tractor and was run over by it. He was taken to hospital by them in trolley, where he expired.
9. No discrepancy appeared in the statement of any of said witnesses particularly PW2 who was an eye witness of accident. According to latter, he gave statement to the police after FIR was registered. I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2. Apart from all this, the fact that respondent no. 1 was driving the said tractor at the time of accident, was not denied by said respondent. Considering all this, It was well established that accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
10. When it is proved on file that late Mohd. Rozid Alam husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of other petitioners died in a Suit NO.903/08 Bibi Savana Khatoon Vs. Manoj :6: vehicular accident, caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1, petitioners are well within their rights to claim compensation.
11. It is contended by ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that his client is not liable to pay compensation as the offending vehicle was a tractor, the victim fell down from trolley, annexed to said tractor. In a circumstance when a trailer is annexed to the tractor it becomes a goods carrier U/s 2 (47) of The Motor Vehicle Act. More over, respondent no. 1 was allowed to drive only vehicles coming within the category of motorcycle or light motor vehicle ( non transport). This fact is verified from statement given by Sh. Brij Pal ( R3W1) who was a Dealing Asstt. from the office of MLO , Regional Transport Authority, Wazirpur. Similar was deposition of Sh. Navneet Foel ( R3W2). Ld. Counsel relied upon a case titled as Natwar Parikh &Co. Vs. State of Karnatka & Ors. III (2005) ACC 749 (SC).
12. For the sake of arguments, even if it is presumed that respondent no. 1 was not authorised to drive a tractor having a trailer annexed with it. A poor victim can not be supposed to enquire about validity of driving licence before travelling in a vehicle, particularly a labourer employed to load /unload the goods. Following was mandated by Apex Court in case National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chela Bharathamma & Ors. appeal (civil) 6178 of 2004, "Considering Suit NO.903/08 Bibi Savana Khatoon Vs. Manoj :7: the beneficial object of the Act i.e the Motor Vehicles Act , it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though, in law it has no liability." Trite it to say that in above referred case, according to insurer, owner of offending vehicle was not having any valid permit. On the same analogy, in my opinion, insurer i.e. respondent no. 3 is liable to pay compensation. However, same may claim recovery from other respondents, if permissible by law.
13. Deceased is stated to be a labourer , aged 39 years. Even if, his earning is taken as minimum wage at the relevant time, same was Rs. 3516/ According to ld. Counsel for petitioner, his wages would have increased several times till now.
14. This court can taken notice of the fact that even minimum wages of labourers are increasing constantly. Same were never decreased. Perhaps due to inflation or other reasons, worth of rupee is always going down. On 18.01.08 ( day of accident in question) minimum wage of a unskilled labourer was Rs. 3,516/ per month, same was increased to Rs. 3,633/ w.e.f. 01.02.08 and Rs. 3,683/ from 01.08.08. At this time, it is Rs. 8,632/w.e.f. 01.10.14. In this way, it will not be proper to calculate total loss of earning,taking minimum wage of a worker at the time of accident, which the deceased would have earned in his entire life. Even if 50% of Suit NO.903/08 Bibi Savana Khatoon Vs. Manoj :8: minimum wages at that time is taken as a value of inflation or cost of devaluation of rupee, it comes to Rs. 5,274/ i.e. much less than minimum wages of unskilled labourer at present. Even if, the deceased was labourer, would have spent ¼ th of his income on his personal expenses, it comes to Rs. 3,955.50. As deceased was 39 years of age, a multiplier of 15 is applied. Counting in this way, loss of earning comes to Rs.3,516+1758 (cost of inflation) i.e. 5,274 1318.50 ( personal expenses of deceased ) = Rs. 3955.50 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 7,11,990/. Apart from all this, petitioners are allowed a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each for love and affection towards the deceased, Rs. 25,000/ as funeral expenses and Rs. 20,000/ for loss of estate and loss of consortium, making a total sum of Rs. 11,56,990/.
The detailed of amount of compensation is given as under:
1. Loss of dependency: Rs. 7,11,990
2. Loss of love & affection:
(Rs. 1 lakh each to petitioners no. 1 to 4)Rs. 4,00,000
3. Funeral expenses: Rs. 25,000/
4. Loss of estate & loss of consortium Rs. 20,000/ Total compensation Rs. 11,56,990/ Issue no. 2 is thus decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
Suit NO.903/08 Bibi Savana Khatoon Vs. Manoj :9:
15. Petition in hands is allowed. Respondent no. 3 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 11,56,990/ to the petitioners as compensation within 30 days from today alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till realisation of amount. However, same can claim from other respondents, if permissible by law. Amount of interim compensation (if any) will be deducted from the aforesaid amount.
16. Out of the awarded amount, 50 % is granted to petitioner no. 1(wife ) and remaining 50 % to petitioners no. 2 to 4, to be shared equally.
17. The entire share of minors ( petitioners no. 2, 3 & 4 ) be invested in fixed deposits of some nationalised bank, till they attain age of majority. Their mother (petitioner no. 1) shall have liberty to withdraw interest from the FDRs of the children. As regards the shares of petitioners no. 1, 50 % out of it be invested in fixed deposits of nationalised bank for a period of 2 years.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI) Court on 10.04.2015 PO,MACT NORTH,ROHINI, DELHI Suit NO.903/08 Bibi Savana Khatoon Vs. Manoj :10: Suit NO. 903/08 10.04.2015:
Present: Sh. Sumit Gupta Advocate for petitioner.
Sh.Yogesh Kumar Advocate for R1.
Sh. V.K. Puri for R3/ Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. None for respondent no. 2.
Vide separate Judgment, dictated and announced in the court today, petition is disposed of .
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of this order be given dasti to all the parties, free of costs.
PO,MACT1 (N),ROHINI, DELHI/10.04.2015 Suit NO.903/08 Bibi Savana Khatoon Vs. Manoj