Delhi District Court
(Surendra Singh Anand & Anr. vs Ravi & Ors.) on 13 August, 2014
Suit No.77/11
(Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.)
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.C. MALIK, JUDGE, MACT,
(CENTRALDISTRICT), DELHI.
SUIT NO. 77/11
Unique Case ID No.02401C0059472001
1. Sh. Surendra Singh Anand
S/o Shri Beant Singh (Father)
2. Smt.Gurvinder Kaur
W/o Sh. Surendra Singh Anand (Mother)
Both R/o
WZ69B, Gali No.9,
Varinder Nagar, New Delhi110 058 .......Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh.Ravi,
S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi
Page 1/23 13.08.2014
Suit No.77/11
(Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.)
S/o Shri Gorakh Nath,
R/o Fatehabad, Haryana (Driver)
2. M/s Lauls Limited
Plot No.33B, N.I.T., Faridabad, Haryana (Owner)
3. M/s National Insurance Company Ltd.
5C1 and 2, B.P. Railway Road,
Neelam Chowk, Faridabad, Haryana (Insurer)
.......RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution of the suit : 07.02.2011
Arguments heard on : 13.08.2014
Judgment pronounced on : 13.08.2014
S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi
Page 2/23 13.08.2014
Suit No.77/11
(Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.)
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim petition has been preferred by the petitioners U/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/ in respect of death of their son Sh.Amarpreet Singh in the motor vehicle accident in question.
2. Brief facts of this case giving rise to the present claim petition are that as on 18.06.2009 deceased Sh.Amarpreet Singh was coming from Sector 7, Faridabad, Haryana to his house along with his two friends namely Pankaj Yadav and Ishan Bhutani on his Bajaj Discover motorcycle bearing registration No.HR 51 V 8639. When they reached near Prompt Company in front of Shri Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sector4, Faridabad, Haryana, then the driver of the offending Tata Trolla vehicle bearing registration No.HR 38 N 8483 who was reversing his vehicle without any indication in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result thereof all the occupants of the motorcycle fell down on the road and deceased Sh.Amarpreet Singh was crushed S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 3/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) under the rear wheels of the offending vehicle. He was rushed to Sarvoday Hospital, Sector8, Faridabad, Haryana, where during his treatment he died on 19.06.2009. FIR No.227/2009 dated 19.06.2009 U/s 227,337,304A IPC was registered as Police Station Sector7, Faridabad, Haryana.
3. Respondent No.1/driver and Respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle have not contested the case and were proceeded exparte vide orders dated 11.07.2011. This claim petition is contested by Respondent No.3/Insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. In their Written Statement Respondent No.3/Insurer of the offending vehicle/The National Insurance Company Ltd. have averred that the accident had taken place due to negligence on the part of the deceased himself. According to them no accident had taken place due to negligence of Respondent No1. According to them the amount claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant, unjust and unfair. They, however, admitted that the vehicle bearing registration No.HR 38 N 8483 was S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 4/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) insured with them vide policy No.361100/31/08/6700004708 w.e.f. 07.01.2009 to 06.01.2010 in the name of Respondent No.2 M/s Lauls Ltd. clearly covering the date of accident.
5. On the pleadings of the parties on 11.07.2011 the following issues were framed :
(i) Whether the deceased Sh.Amarpreet Singh had died due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 18.06.2009 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No.HR 38 N 8483 by Respondent No.1?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
6. In support of their claim, the petitioners have in all examined three witnesses i.e. petitioner No.1 Sh.Surendra Singh Anand S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 5/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) as PW1, Sh.Angel Roy as PW2 and Sh.Ram Nivas as PW3. Thereafter, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners closed their evidence. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company has examined their two witnesses i.e. Ms. Rachna, Administrative Officer of the National Insurance Company Ltd. as R3W1 and Sh.Bharat Saraswat, Junior Assistant from the office of RTO, Agra, Uttar Pradesh as R3W2 and their evidence was closed on 10.02.2014.
7. I have heard arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have perused the record of this case.
In the course of his submissions Ld. counsel for the petitioners has prayed for grant of compensation as claimed by him.
On the other hand, firstly it is argued by Ld. counsel for the Insurance Company that as the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake and owner of the offending vehice failed to S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 6/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) produce and prove the valid permit of the offending vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
My Issuewise findings are as under :
8. Issue No. (i) Whether the deceased Sh.Amarpreet Singh had died due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 18.06.2009 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No.HR 38 N 8483 by Respondent No.1?
In his evidence petitioner No.1 Sh.Surendra Singh Anand has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he has fully supported his case as mentioned in the claim petition. He further testified that his deceased son was 21 years of age at the time of accident, he was doing engineering S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 7/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) Course (BTech final year) in Electronics & Communication from Advanced Institute of Technology and Management, Delhi Mathura Road, Aurgangbad, Faridabad Haryana and if the deceased was alive then his earning would be Rs.30,000/ per month including incentives and other allowances. He has placed and proved on record original rent agreement as Ex.PW1/1, copy of driving licence of the deceased as Ex.PW1/2, copy of death certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW1/3, copy of receipts of last rites of the deceased as Ex.PW1/5, copy of certificate issued by Manav Rachna College of Engineering in the name of deceased as Ex.PW1/6, copy of his Election Icard as Ex.PW1/7, copy of Election Icard of his wife as Ex.PW1/8. On being crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company he testified that he is not an eyewitness to the accident. He testified that he had executed the rent agreement two months after the accident. He admitted that on his Election Icard the residential address is Faridabad, Haryana. He testified that he is working as Maintenance Supervisor in Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon, Haryana and getting slary of Rs.20,000/ per month. He admitted that he was not dependent on the deceased. He admitted that on Ex.PW1/2 S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 8/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) residential address of Faridabad, Haryana is given.
Copies of certified copies of criminal record (comprising copy of challan, FIR, site plan, Postmortem report etc.) placed on record clearly show that respondent No.1/Driver of the offending vehicle had been arrested, chargesheeted by the police and is facing trial. All this also primafacie goes to show rashness and negligence of Respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle.
In these circumstances according to the settled law on the subject as laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble High Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana, reported as 2009 ACJ, the petitioners have proved rash and negligence of respondent No.1/Driver of the offending vehicle.
As such in view of testimony of petitioner No.1 as PW1, read with copies of certified copies of criminal record produced, no doubt is left in respect of the deceased having suffered fatal injuries in road traffic S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 9/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) accident on 18.06.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. HR 38 N 8483 by respondent No.1/Driver of the offending vehicle. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
9. Issue No. (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 have testified that their deceased son has left behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. There is no evidence to the contrary. Consequently, the petitioners only are entitled to compensation for the accidental death of the deceased.
It is very strongly argued by Ld.Counsel for the Insurance Company that since the accident took place outside Delhi and the parties at the time of the accident were living outside Delhi, Delhi S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 10/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) courts do not acquire jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the claim petition by virtue their subsequent residence in Delhi.
It is, however, submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the residence of the petitioners at the time of the presentation of the claim petition is sufficient to confirm the jurisdiction on this court to entertain, try and decide the claim petition.
The controversy raised by Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company and answered by Ld.Counsel for the petitioners is no controversy at all in view of the settled law on the subject. Even if the parties are living within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at the time of the presentation of the claim petition, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present claim petition, therefore, the objection of the Insurance Company is hereby turned down.
10. Now we come to consider various important factors S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 11/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) relevant to calculation of the amount of compensation, consequent to accidental death of the deceased as follows:
(a) Criteria for taking income of the deceased:
PW1 has testified in his evidence that his deceased son was a student of BTech final year and that had his deceased son been alive, his earning would have been be Rs.30,000/ per month including incentives and other allowances as given to Engineers of the Electronics and Communications by the M.N.C's in the beginning of carrier of the deceased. He has examined two witnesses, who deposed regarding their B.E. Degree and regarding their present employments and salaries.
PW2 Sh. Angel Roy, who was one of the classmates of the deceased Amarpreet Singh in Manav Rachna College of engineering has tendered in evidence his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. He testified that he was the classmate of deceased in the course B.E.Applied Electronics & Instrumentation Engineering from S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 12/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) Manav Rachna College of Engineering. He testified that after completion of his degree of B.E.Applied Electronics & Instrumentation Engineering from Manav Rachna College of Engineering he is getting salary of Rs.2,40,000/ per annum. He further testified that he has received another appointment letter from Imperial Auto Industries Ltd., Faridabad, Haryana. He has proved on record copy of his driving licence as Ex.PW2/1. On being crossexamined by Ld.Counsel for Insurance Company he testified that his BE course is of four years. He denied the suggestion that neither he is working with the RedCell Technologies, Noida, U.P. nor he is getting a monthly salary of Rs.40,000/. He has re examined and placed on record his additional affidavit as Ex.PW2/AA. He has proved on record his appointment letter as Ex.PW2/2, salary certificates as Ex.PW2/3 to Ex.PW2/5 for the month of February, March and April, 2014. On being crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company he testified that he is in employment of M/s Imperial Auto Industries Ltd. w.e.f. 12.08.2013. He testified that he had completed his B.E. Course in August 2010 and got his present employment.
S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 13/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) It is argued by Ld.Counsel for the Insurance Company that for assessing the income of the deceased his income should be calculated on the basis of minimum wages Act, as deceased could complete his engineering only one year after the date of the accident.
She has also argued that since one of the witness examined by the petitioners had done his engineering from a different college, so his income could not be taken into consideration.
The engineering course undergone by the deceased is a 4 years course, out of which three years course the deceased had successfully completed. Soon after completing his engineering he would have been an Engineer and would have been earning as such. There is no logic of taking minimum wages of the deceased in such like cases. Therefore, the income of the deceased would be taken as of an Engineer, as deposed by PW2, who was batch mate of deceased in Manav Rachna College of Engineering. In view of the evidence placed on record in the form of letter dated 01.10.2010 of M/s RedCell Technologies Pvt. Ltd., income of S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 14/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) the deceased is taken as Rs.2,40,000/ per annum.
(b) Selection of multiplier:
PW1 Sh.Surendra Singh Anand has testified the age of deceased as 21 years in his evidence.
During the course of arguments this court specifically asked for matriculation certificate of the deceased to be very sure about the date of birth of the deceased. Instantly photocopy of the same placed on record with copy of the same delivered to Ld. counsel for the Insurance Company. The same is Ex.DOB. According to Matriculation certificate the date of birth of the deceased is 07.06.1988. The date of accident is 18.06.2009, therefore as on the date of accident the age of the deceased comes to 21 years, which comes to age group of 21 to 25. Therefore, as per Sarla Verma's Judgment, the multiplier of 18 is to be adopted.
S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 15/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.)
(c) Addition to income for future prospects:
In view of judgment of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors"
bearing Civil Appeal No.3860/2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24825/2010), since the deceased was below 30 years of age at the time of his death, an addition @ 50% is to be granted/added towards future prospects and rise in cost of living. In view of the above discussion, the income of the deceased is to be considered as Rs.3,60,000/ (i.e. Rs.2,40,000/ + 50% of Rs.2,40,000/= Rs.3,60,000/) per annum.
(d) Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
Petitioner No.1 has testified that his son was unmarried at the time of accident. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma (Supra), 50% of the income of the deceased is directed to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as the deceased was S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 16/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) bachelor and has left behind his parents. After deducting onehalf towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependence comes out to be Rs.1,80,000/.
(e) Loss of financial dependency In these circumstances total loss of financial dependency of the Legal Heirs of the deceased in this case comes to Rs.32,40,000/(i.e. Rs.1,80,000/ x 18 = Rs.32,40,000/). Therefore, I am inclined to grant Rs.32,40,000/ towards loss of financial dependency to the Legal heirs of the deceased.
(f) Compensation under nonpecuniary heads:
No amount of money can compensate the loss of a son to his parents. No amount of money can wipe the tears, the trauma of the petitioners and the feeling that the petitioners must be feeling each day having lost their son. The trauma is for the lifetime. Therefore, the S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 17/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) claimants, who are intimate family members of the deceased are also entitled to get nonpecuniary compensation towards loss of love and affection, loss to estate and funeral expenses. In my view, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac only) towards loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.10,000/ towards loss of estate, a sum of Rs.25,000/ towards funeral expenses of the deceased.
Having discussed as above, I record my findings on issue No.2 accordingly.
11. Relief In view of my finding on issue nos. (i) & (ii), the petitioners/claimants are entitled to and awarded compensation under the below mentioned heads as follows:
Loss of financial dependency Rs.32,40,000/ as calculated in para No. 10(e) S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 18/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) Loss of Love and affection Rs.1,00,000/ Loss of Estate Rs.0,10,000/ Funeral Expenses Rs.0,25,000/ Total Rs.33,75,000/ (Rupees Thirty Three Lac Seventy Five Thousand only). The amount of interim award, if any, shall, however, be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
The claimants are also entitled to get interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 07.02.2011 realization.
12. Out of the award amount and interest thereon 40% be given to petitioner No.1 Sh. Surendra Singh Anand (father of the deceased) and 60% be given to petitioner No.2 Smt. Gurvinder Kaur (mother of the deceased).
S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 19/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.)
13. Liability to Satisfy the Claim In support of his submissions in respect of recovery rights, the Insurance Company has examined their two witnesses i.e. Ms.Rachna, Administrative Officer of National Insurance Company Ltd. as R3W1, who has testified in his evidence that their Company had issued a policy of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR 38 N 8483 vide Policy No. 361100/31/08/6700004708 w.e.f. 7th January, 2009 to 6 January, 2010 in the name of M/s Lauls Ltd., subject to the terms, conditions and limitations of the Policy. She testified that their company had issued a legal notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC to the driver Sh.Ravi and owner M/s Lauls Ltd. to produce the documents as mentioned in the notices. She testified that their company through the Investigator has verfied the driving licence of the driver. As per the report of the Investigator and the report of form 54 issued by the Licencing Authority, Agra, U.P. the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle is fake. She testified that permit of the offending vehicle was also not provided by the owner. She has proved on record certified copy of the Insurance Policy as S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 20/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) Ex.R3W1/1, legal notices U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC issued to driver and owner of the offending vehicle as Ex.R3W1/2 to Ex.R3W1/4, postal receipts of the same as Ex.R3W1/5 to Ex.R3W1/7, report of the Investigator on the driving licence of the driver as Ex.R3W1/8 and report on Form54 as Ex.R3W1/9.
R3W2 Sh. Bharat Saraswat, Junior Assistant from the office of RTO, Agra, U.P. has testified that driving licende No.17199/Ag/05 has been issued on 09.11.2005 from the office of RTO, Agra, Uttar Pradesh in the name of Sh.Santosh Kumar, S/o Sh.Chhitti Riys, R/o V&PO Gadsoni. He has proved the said page of his office register as Ex.R3W2/DL1. He testified that no driving licence No.17199/Ag/05 has at all been issued in the name of Sh.Ravi S/o Sh.Gorakh Nath, R/o Fatehabad, Agra, U.P. on 13.09.2005.
I have heard arguments on this point and have gone through the judicial file. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle have not proved on record any valid driving licence of driver of the offending vehicle, they have also not proved on record any permit of the offending S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 21/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) vehicle as valid on the date of accident. No evidence was also led to controvert the claim of the Insurance Company either by respondent No. 1/driver or by respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, it is clear that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence and permit as on the date of accident. In these circumstances, I am inclined to grant recovery rights to the Insurance Company as against the other respondents.
Respondent No.1 being driver, respondent No.2 being owner and Respondent No.3 being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the petitioners/claimants.
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount with the Nazir of this Court within 30 days under intimation to the claimants/Legal Heirs, failing which the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days .
S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 22/23 13.08.2014 Suit No.77/11 (Surendra Singh Anand & anr. V/s Ravi & ors.) Insurance Company/driver/owner of the offending vehicle are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of this amount with the Tribunal to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
A copy of this judgement be sent to Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company for compliance within the time granted failing which General Manager of the Insurance Company will show reasons for noncompliance.
Nazir of this court is directed to appraise the undersigned in the event of nonreceipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
14. File be consigned to Record Room Announced in open court (S. C. Malik) on 13.08.2014 Judge, MACT(Central), Delhi S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 23/23 13.08.2014