Delhi District Court
Smt. Vimla Devi vs Sh. Awadesh Pandey on 29 November, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. VINEETA GOYAL: PO-MACT (SOUTH-01)
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FATAL CASE
Suit no. : 650/08
Unique Case ID no. : 02403C0283452008
IN THE MATTER OF :-
1. Smt. Vimla Devi
W/o Late Sh. Ram Bishun Ram -----------------Petitioner no.1
2. Sh. Dushyant Kumar
S/o. Late Sh. Ram Bishun Ram -----------------Petitioner no.2
3. Brijesh Kumar
S/o. Late Sh. Ram Bishun Ram -----------------Petitioner no.3
4. Sushmita Kumari
D/o. Late Sh. Ram Bishun Ram -----------------Petitioner no.4
All R/o. C-68, Block II, Kendrya Vihar
Sector-82, Noida-201307
Versus
1. Sh. Awadesh Pandey
S/o Sh. Nand Lal Paney 117/I-214
Naveen Nagar, Kanpur -----------------Driver
2. BE-AR Sales, Mathura Road,
Badarpur, New Delhi -----------------Owner
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
1st Floor, Sector-4, Noida-201301 -----------------Insurance Co.
4. Uma Shankar
Father of Late Sh. Ram Bishun Ram ---------Parents
Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 1/18
2
5. Smt. Lachia
Mother of late Sh. Ram Bishun Ram
Both R/o. 59, Jethwar, Sikandarpur,
Ballia ---------Parents
-------- Respondents
Date of institution in the case : 16.04.2008
Date of institution
in the present court : 26.11.2008
Date of arguments : 24.11.2012
Date of order : 29.11.2012
Appearance:Sh. Dhruv Wahi, ld. counsel for petitioners.
Respondent nos.1 and 2 ex-parte.
Sh. Kamaldeep, ld. counsel for insurance company/R3.
JUDGMENT/AWARD
1. The present claim petition u/s 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, as amended upto date (herein after referred as the Act) has been filed by
the petitioners for claiming compensation for Rs.1,75,00,000/- on account of
death of Sh. Ram Bishun Ram in an accident which took place on 20.11.2007 at
about 11.50 a.m. near Shiv Murti on National Highway-8, Gurgaon Road, New
Delhi.
2. Brief fact of the case are that on fateful day the victim Sh. Ram Bishun
Ram was proceeding on his motorcycle from his place of employment i.e EXL
Service.com (I) Pvt. Ltd. situated at A-48 Sector-58 Noida towards the office of
EXL Service opened recently at Gurgaon and when he reached near Shiv Murti
on National Highway-8 Gurgaon Road at about 11:50 a.m one vehicle, tanker
bearing registration no. DL-1GB-5039 came from behind being driven by its
driver in rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcyclist, resultantly causing
Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 2/18
3
fatal injuries to victim. Thereafter, an FIR No. 799/07 dated 20.11.2007 was
registered under section 279/304-A IPC on information of one SI Pradeep Rawat
with Police Station Vasant Kunj regarding accident. It is averred in the petition
that the victim was sole bread earner of the family. He was working as Asst.
Manager with EXL Service.com (I) Pvt. Ltd. with monthly salary of Rs.66,666/- at
the time of death. He was due to be promoted to the post of Manager in near
future and upon promotion he would have earned approximately Rs.79,999/- per
month. The victim has a promising career and looking at his qualification,
performance and appraisal he would have been promoted to General Manager
with annual earning of Rs. 50,00,000/-. It was averred that due to demise of Sh.
Ram Bishun Ram, the family has suffered adversely, loss of love and affection as
well as support both financially and emotionally. It is averred that under the
above circumstances, the petitioners be awarded compensation of Rs.
1,75,00,000/-.
3. The aforesaid claim petition was filed by claimants after arrying Awadesh
Pandey as driver, BE-AR Sales as owner and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co. Ltd. of offending vehicle as respondent no.3. The parents of deceased were
also impleaded as respondent no.4 and 5.
4. In response to notice issued to respondents, the petition was contested
by respondent no. 1-driver, respondent no. 2 - owner and respondent no. 3-
insurance company and filed written statement. None appeared for parents of
deceased and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05.11.2009. Joint
written statement was filed by driver and owner inter alia stating that respondent
no.1 was neither rash nor negligent in driving the vehicle. He was having valid
driving license on the alleged date and time of accident. It was further stated
that risk of the vehicle in question is insured with respondent no.3 i.e Bajaj
Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 3/18
4
Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rest of the contents of petition were denied
for want of knowledge.
5. In its written statement, insurance company admitted that vehicle in
question bearing no. DL-1GB-5039 was insured with it subject to terms and
conditions contained in the policy no. OG-08-1103-1803-00001033 from
27.09.2007 to 26.09.2008. The insurance company denied its liability on the
ground that in case if it is found that driver of vehicle in question was not holding
valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and alleged offending
vehicle was not having a valid permit at the time of accident in question and
plying the vehicle without a valid permit, the insurance company is not liable to
indemnify the insured.
6. From the pleadings on record the following issues were framed on
08.03.2010:-
Issues:
1. Whether deceased Ram Bishun Ram suffered fatal injuries in an
accident on 20.11.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle
no. DL-1GB-5039 driven by respondent No.1, vehicle owned by
respondent no.2 and insured by respondent No.3? OPP
2. If so, what amount of compensation, petitioner is entitled to and
from whom?
3. Relief.
7. In support of their case, petitioners examined following witnesses:-
The widow of deceased namely Vimla Devi herself stepped into the witness
box as PW1 and deposed on the averments of claim petition and attributed
rashness and negligence on the part of erring driver i.e. respondent no. 1. She
tendered into evidence certified copy of charge sheet - Ex. PW1/1, list of
witnesses in FIR no. 799/07 - Ex. PW1/2, FIR - Ex. PW1/3, site plan - Ex.
Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 4/18
5
PW1/4, Mechanical inspection report Ex. PW1/5, postmortem report - Ex.
PW1/6, medical record - Ex. PW1/7 colly, statements - Ex. PW1/8 colly, challan,
arrest memo, vehicle photographs, driving license - Ex. PW1/9 and Ex. PW1/10
colly.
The petitioners produced Sh. Manikandan.R, Senior Manager, EXL
Service.com (I) Pvt. Ltd. as PW2. This witness produced record pertaining to
deceased and stated that as per record late Ram Bishun Ram was drawing a
salary of Rs. 55,551/- and was getting reimbursement of Rs. 7,000/- which was
on cost to company basis. As per record, he was getting the aforesaid amount
and could get additional amount as may be decided by Management. He was
Asst. Manager at the time of his death. His cost to the company was Rs.
8,00,000/- per annum. He further stated that in normal course of business, the
deceased would have been promoted to the post of Manager subject to
Management decision. The salary of Manager would have been about more
than 10 % of salary drawn by him at the time of his death.
SI Pradeep Rawat, No. D594 Kalkaji Circle, New Delhi, investigating officer
was examined as PW-3. He stated that he has arrested the
accused/respondent no.1 herein who was produced by owner of the vehicle and
charge sheet was prepared. The driver of tanker bearing no. DL-1GB- 5039
was found guilty. Mechanical inspection of vehicles involved in the accident
was done. The motorcycle was damaged and the tanker had scratched marks
on the left side of bumper. He further stated that he had also obtained the MLC
and postmortem report from hospital and the death was caused by severe
crushed injury on head and face and injury to internal organs of chest and
abdomen produced by blunt force impact. He produced copies of criminal case
record such as FIR, charge sheet, mechanical inspection report, MLC, driving
Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 5/18
6
license as exhibits.
Head Constable Tanwar Singh was examined as PW-4. He deposed that he
was posted at police station Vasant Kunj on date of accident and was on duty at
NH-8 as beat head constable at Rangpuri Shiv Murti NH-8 from 8:00 a.m upto
10:00 p.m. Around 12:00 p.m he was near Shiv Murti and performing his duty
when he saw a motorcycle bearing no. UP-16J-226 whose rider fell down on the
road with its motorcycle and when a tanker bearing no. DL-1GB-5039 which
was coming from behind and hit the motorcycle and its rider and did not stop
despite the same after seeing him. The tanker was being driven at a high
speed, in rash and negligent manner. He tried to stop him but he did not stop
him therefore, he shouted at him and went behind him on his motorcycle.
Seeing him coming he stopped after some distance and looked behind and
thereafter, ran away. He next stated that accident was caused solely due to
rash and negligent driving of tanker driver.
Sh. Zeaul Jaffri working as Asst. Manager in Human Resource with EXL
Service.com (I) Pvt. Ltd. as PW-5 deposed that the deceased Ram Bishun
Ram joined on 01.09.2000 as Supervisor Technology, Telecom. He was working
as Asst. Manager, Technology, Telecom at the time of death in the accident. He
joined on a salary of Rs. 1,88,000/- per annum and was earning Rs. 8,00,000/-
per annum at the time of his death in year 2007. He was very energetic,
dedicated, hard working and totally committed to his work. He had a
tremendous growth on account of his aforesaid qualities which is evident from
his promotion from Supervisor to Senior Executive and then Asst. manger within
a period of seven years. He was going for an assignment in Philippines but
unfortunately died in an accident. He further stated that as per their appraisal
cycle keeping in view his performance he was going to be promoted as a
Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 6/18
7
Manger from 01.04.2008 and his salary as a Manager would have been Rs.
9,20,000/- per annum in the said grade. He also stated that keeping in view his
performance Ram Bishun Ram could have been promoted to the post of
General manager in near future and would have drawn a salary of more than
Rs. 12,00,000/- as on today. He produced certificate dated 26.02.2008 bearing
signatures of Mr. Samir H. Pandey, Asst. Vice-President (Human Resources)
alongwith salary certificate and pay slip cum tax advice for the month of
December, 2007 as Ex. PW5/1. He also produced documents pertaining to
performance of Late Ram Bhushan Ram with the aforesaid establishment as
Ex. PW5/2.
8. In defence, insurance company examined Ms. Anushree Dutt, Executive
Legal as Ex. R3W1. She produced photocopy of notice issued to driver and
owner, insurance policy and driving license of respondent no.1 as exhibits and
stated that their office had sent notice to driver and owner through their counsel
for producing valid and effective driving license of driver. As per driving license
of driver/respondent no.1 there is endorsement only for LMV (PE), HGV (PE)
and HPV (PE) but there is no endorsement for driving the vehicle carrying
hazardous goods as required under section 14 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and
rule 9 of Central Motor Rules, 1989. Insurance company next examined Sh.
Sanjay Diwan, Asst. Secretary STA Department as R3W2. He produced permit
record of vehicle no. DL-1GB-5039 and stated that on 20.11.2007 i.e the date of
accident the permit was in the name of M/s. BE-AR Sales. As per record the
vehicle was registered as Tanker. The permit was issued to the above said
vehicle to carry goods on hire/to carry petrol or petroleum goods. The permit no.
P-11205/2001 was valid upto 17.10.2011 from 18.10.2006.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. counsel for parties and
Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 7/18
8
gone through the case file and my findings on the issues are as under:-
Issue No. 1
10. This is the petition under Section 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988,
as such petitioners are required to prove the rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the offending vehicle.
11. The Ld. counsel for the insurance company argued that at the time of
accident victim was overtaking tractor trolly hence, in the process of overtaking
the victim hit tractor trolly from behind and lost the balance and fell down on the
road. Repelling these arguments, counsel for petitioners vociferously contended
that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of tanker insured
with the insurance company.
12. The wife of deceased Smt. VimIa Devi has narrated the mode and manner
of accident. In order to support their case petitioners have examined Head
Constable, Tanwar Lal eyewitness to occurrence as PW-3. It has been
specifically stated by him that on the date of accident he was on duty as beat
head constable near Shiv Murti NH-8 and around 12:00 p.m. He saw a Bajaj
Discovery Motorcycle bearing no. UP-16J-226 whose rider fell down on the road
with its motorcycle and when a tanker bearing no. DL-1GB-5039 which was
coming from behind and hit the motorcycle and its rider and did not stop despite
the same after seeing him. The tanker was being driven at a high speed, in rash
and negligent manner. He tried to stop him but he did not stop therefore, he
shouted at him and went behind him on his motorcycle. Seeing him coming he
stopped after some distance and looked behind and thereafter, ran away. He
next stated that accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving of
tanker driver. SI Pradeep Rawat appearing as PW-3 conducted investigation
and during investigation prepared the site plan and seized both the vehicles
Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 8/18
9
involved in the accident and got conducted their mechanical inspections which
shows fresh damages on the body of the motorcycle and tanker reflecting their
involvement in an accident. The erring driver was apprehended and the FIR was
registered u/s 279/304 A IPC. The medical record produced on judicial file
shows that victim was removed to hospital and medico legal report was prepared
and postmortem was done. The cause of death was mentioned as severe
crushed injuries on head and face and injury to internal organ of chest and
abdomen produced by heavy blunt force impact corroborating the factum of
accident. For the reasons best known to them the driver and the owner
abstained themselves for appearing into witness box to controvert the case of
claimants or to fortify the defence taken by them in their written statement. They
have not brought any material on record to contradict the statement made by
head constable Tanwar Lal in which allegations of rashness have been leveled
against him. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that degree of proof
required for proving the negligence on the part of the driver in the claim
proceedings is not as strict as it is laid down in proving the guilt of accused in
criminal cases. The standard of proof is all together different in criminal cases
and in civil cases. The proceedings before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunals
are of a civil nature and it is settled law that in civil cases it is the preponderance
of probabilities and not the rule of proof beyond any reasonable doubt which
holds the field.
13. So far as plea of contributory negligence of deceased raised by the
insurance company is concerned, I do not find any merit to the contentions for
the reason that the question as regards contributory negligence is essentially a
question of fact and the facts in the instant case do not inculpate the deceased. It
is undisputed fact that claimants have produced on record copy of an FIR along
Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 9/18
10
with other relevant documents including charge sheet, site plan, mechanical
inspection report, report from Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology etc.
The aforesaid documents reveal that criminal proceedings have been registered
against the respondent no.1, for the alleged accident. The respondent - driver
has not placed on record any document to the effect that he having moved any
application of being falsely implicated in the accident. In the case of Basant
Kaur and others vs. Chattar Pal Singh and Ors. 2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB), it
was observed that registration of criminal case against driver of offending vehicle
is enough to record finding that the driver of the offending vehicle is responsible
for causing the accident and the factum of accident is not in dispute.
14. The factum of accident is not dispute and also the manner in which the
same has occurred was not controverted by driver. Moreover, driver/respondent
no.1 did not appear into witness box to explain the manner in which accident had
occurred. In consideration of totality and circumstances of the case it is prima-
facie established that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
driver of Tanker i.e respondent no.1 resultantly causing fatal injuries to victim.
Hence, issue no. 1 is proved in favour of the petitioners and against
respondents.
Issue no. 2:
15. Since issues No. 1 has been decided in favour of the petitioners, they are
entitled to compensation in the following manner:-
Loss of dependency:
16. The deceased Ram Bishun Ram (date of birth 1.07.1970) started his
career with Excel Service.Com (I) India Pvt. Ltd. as Supervisor Technology and
at the time of death, he was working as Assistant Manager allegedly drawing a
handsome salary of about Rs. 8 lac per annum. The deceased is said to have
Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 10/18
11
promising career as his employer in a letter - Ex.PW5/1 narrated that in eight
years, the deceased achieved two promotions from Supervisor to Senior
Executive and then to Assistant Manager due to his commendable performance,
devotion to duties and many other qualities mentioned in the said letter. In
support of the claim of the salary, a number of documents in the form of
payslips, EPFO record, monthly details of salary of the period from April 2002 to
December 2007 have been placed on record. The motor accident took place on
20.11.2007 and the deceased drew his last salary for that month. A reference to
payslip for the month of October 2007 shows total salary of Rs.55,551 which
includes basic salary, HRA & Adhoc allowance. This adhoc allowance is almost
in the nature of permanent allowance because it is seen that the adhoc
allowance of Rs.20,551/- is consistently being paid from April 2007 onwards. In
the month of June 2007, employee referral allowance of Rs. 20,000/- and for July
2007 Rs.40,000/- have been paid. The payment structure of deceased shows
that his employer has been compensating him with number of allowance which is
commonly adopted in private sectors. It is common knowledge that in private
sector there is a concept of annual package and allowances linked with
performance. The monthly slips in such circumstances sometimes becomes
misleading because if cognizance of a monthly payslip with less allowances is
taken, the annual calculation will be at a lower amount. Similarly any monthly pay
slip with more allowances of the month can lead to a conclusion of excessive
annual salary, therefore, it will be appropriate to take sum of monthly
emoluments from salary slip multiplying with 12 and adding to it total allowances
for arriving at annual income.
17. Besides, this a general reference can also be made to income tax record.
The claimants have placed on record two Income Tax Returns for assessment
Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 11/18
12
year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 which are analyzed as under:-
Assessment year Income from salary Gross receipts as per
TDS certificate
2006-07 Rs. 3,94,420 Rs. 4,84,180
2007-08 Rs. 4,96,502 Rs. 5,99,708 (growth of
23.86% over last year)
18. It is relevant to note that the return for assessment year 2007-08 was the
last return before the death of deceased.
19. A perusal of payslips from April 2007 to October 2007 shows that on an
average Rs.55,551/- was being paid to the deceased except in certain months
ERA (Employee Referral Allowance) was paid. Thus, the annual emoluments for
the year of death can be taken as Rs.6,66,612/- (Rs.55,551 X12 ). This is further
increased by ERA.
20. The deceased during this period received Employee Referral Allowance
(ERA) amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-.
The month-wise details of ERA is as under:
May 2007 - Rs. 20,000/-
June 2007 - Rs.20,000/-
July 2007 - Rs.40,000/-
December 2007 - Rs.70,000/-
(employee referral payment)
Total - Rs. 1,50,000/-
21. Now adding this allowance to annual receipts of Rs. 6,66,612/-, the total
emoluments at the time of death comes to Rs. 8,16,612/- (Rs.6,66,612
+1,50,000) which shall be considered for the purposes of calculating loss of
income.
Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 12/18
13
Future prospects:-
22. It is discussed above that the deceased has got two promotions in 8 years
remaining from Technical Supervisor to Asst. Manager. It is also seen that on the
basis of IT returns his salary has grown at 23.86 %. Moreover, if the salary of
financial year 2007-08 is compared with last year, it is seen that the has moved
from Rs. 5,99,708/- to Rs. 8,16,612/- witnessing a growth of 36 %. The
employee has placed on record the qualities of the deceased which includes
devotion to duties and handwork etc. Even it is assumed that the salaries do
not given at a very high rate, in the top management but the circumstances do
suggest grant of future prospects @ 20 % are the last calculated emoluments
within Rs. 8,16,612/-. After applying growth of 20 %, the annual income is
calculated as (Rs. 8,16,612 + 20 % of Rs. 8,16,612/-) = Rs. 9,79,934/-. This
income has to be subjected to income tax at the relevant rate which is calculated
after reducing house rent allowance which is non taxable (Rs. 11,667 X 12 =
1,40,004/-) & taxable income comes to Rs. 8,39,930/- For the assessment year
2008-09, for this category, tax calculation was seen from available Ready
Reckoner and comes out to be Rs. Rs. 2,00,979/- therefore, net annual income
comes out to be Rs. 7,78,955/- {Rs. 9,79,934- Rs. 2,00,979/-}. The victim at the
time of accident was 37 years old (date of birth 1.07.1970). The relevant
multiplier of 15 is applicable and thus loss of income comes out to be Rs.
1,16,84,325/-.
23. Deceased left behind more than four family members including wife,
children and parents so, 1/4th of this amount is to be deducted on account of
personal expenses of the deceased which amount he would have spent on
himself had he remained alive. This 1/4th amount comes to Rs. 29,21,081.25/-.
The loss of dependency therefore comes to Rs.87,63,243.75/- and petitioners
Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 13/18
14
are awarded accordingly.
Loss of Consortium :-
24. Petitioner No. 1 being widow of deceased is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as
consortium.
On account of love and affection:-
25. Loss of life can not be compensated in any manner but, in token of this
relief, petitioner is awarded Rs.25,000/-.
Funeral expenses:-
26. Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head of funeral expenses.
27. As such petitioners are awarded under the following Heads:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.87,63,243.75
Loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000.00
On account of Love
and affection : Rs. 25,000.00
Funeral expenses : Rs. 10,000.00
--------------------------------------
Total : Rs.88,08,243.75 (round off Rs. 88,08,244/-)
--------------------------------------- Relief:-
28. Accordingly, a compensation of Rs.88,08,244/-(inclusive interim award if any) is awarded to petitioners with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 16.04.2008 till its realization. LIABILITY:-
29. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 therefore, primary liability to compensate the claimants remained with that of respondent no.1 since the vehicle was also owned by respondent no.2 so, he is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted fact on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 therefore, respondent no.3 becomes contractually liable to compensate the claimants. The contention of insurance company was that respondent no.1/driver of vehicle in question was not holding Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 14/18 15 a driving licence specified for a particular type of vehicle carrying hazardous goods. It was contended by ld. counsel for respondent no.3 that tanker was being driven in violation of section 14 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 9 (3) of Central Motor Vehicles Rules. He referred to the testimonies of R3W1 Ms. Anushree Dutt, Executive Legal and R3W2 Sh. Sanjay Diwan, Assistant Secretary STA Department by stating that as per driving licence of driver/respondent no.1, there is an endorsement only for LMV (PE), HGV (PE) and HPV (PE) and there is no endorsement for driving the vehicle carrying hazardous goods and the permit was issued to the vehicle in question for carrying goods on hire/to carry petroleum/petroleum goods.
30. Chapter 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with licencing of driver of motor vehicles. Section 3 provides that no person shall drive motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle and he shall not drive a transport vehicle unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do.
31. Section 4 provides that no person under the age of 18 shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place and under sub-section (2), no person under the age of 21 years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place. Section 9 provides for the conditions in which driving licence can be issued. Section 10 provides for the form and contents of the driving licence to drive. Sub-section (2) of section 10 provides that the driving license shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of following vehicles, namely: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road-roller; and (j) motor vehicle of a specified description.
32. Further Rule 9 (1) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 provides for the Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 15/18 16 educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. Sub-rule (2) says that the holder of a driving license possessing the minimum educational qualifications or the certificate referred to in Sub-rule (1) shall make an application in writing on a plain paper alongwith driving licence and the relevant certificate to the licencing authority in whose jurisdiction he resides for making necessary endorsement in his driving licence and if the driving is in Form 7, the application shall be accompanied by the fee as is referred to in Sl. No. 8 of the table of Rule 32. Sub-rule (3) provides that the licencing authority on receipt of application referred to in Sub-rule (2) shall make an endorsement in the driving licence of the applicant to the effect that he is authorized to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous and hazard nature to human life.
33. Herein this case, it manifests from testimonies of R3W1 and R3W2 that driver of the offending vehicle was driving tanker which is meant for carrying goods on hire/to carry petroleum/petroleum goods (hazardous goods) and he was having licence only for LMV (PE), HGV (PE) and HPV (PE), there is no endorsement on driving licence for driving vehicle for carrying hazardous goods therefore, there is a breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy and in view of settled law the primary liability to pay the compensation is on insured person and recovery right are granted to insurance company.
34. Accordingly, insurance company shall deposit the amount of compensation and then after depositing shall have right to recover from respondent no. 2 in whose name vehicle is registered.
35. Respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to directly deposit the cheques with SBI, Saket Court branch within 40 days from today and in case of default, penal interest @ 12 % per annum shall be given from the date of filing Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 16/18 17 of delay till deposit of the awarded amount on the account of petitioner.
36. On deposit of award amount 30% of award amount shall go in favour of petitioner No.1, being wife of deceased whereas 20% each of award amount shall go in favour of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 being children of deceased, same be kept in FDR till their attainment of age of majority and 5% each shall go in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5 being parents of deceased. On deposit of award amount, 10% of award in respect of petitioner No.1, wife of deceased shall be credited in her saving bank account and rest of the amount shall be invested in fixed deposit for five years.
37. Interest on all the aforesaid fixed deposits be credited automatically in the saving bank account of the respective petitioners.
38. Withdrawal from the aforesaid saving bank account shall be permitted to claimants after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity card to claimants to facilitate identity. No cheque book be issued to claimants without the permission of this court.
39. The original fixed deposit account book shall be retained by the Bank in the safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to claimants along with the photocopy of the FD account book/receipt. On maturity, the FDR amount shall be directly credited in the saving bank account of the petitioners.
40. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit account without the permission of this court. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this court. On the request of claimants the Bank shall transfer the Saving Account to any other branch of SBI, Saket Court according to her convenience. Claimants shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account in bank.
41. File be consigned to record room only after compliance by insurance Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 17/18 18 company by depositing the award in the manner as stated above. Be awaited for compliance for 28.02.2013.
Pronounced in the open court on 29.11.2012 VINEETA GOYAL PO : MACT (SOUTH-01) 29.11.2012 Suit no. 650/08 Page no. 18/18