Delhi District Court
Sh. Surjeet Singh S/O Late Gurmukh Singh ... vs Ajay Kumar Singh S/O Sh. Ram Sinhar Rai on 25 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI : PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : EAST DISTRICT : DELHI.
MAC PETITION NO : 612 OF 2010
UNIQUE CASE ID NO: 02402C0329402010
1.Sh. Surjeet Singh S/o Late Gurmukh Singh ... Husband
2.Inderjeet Singh S/o Sh. Surjit Singh ... Son
Both R/o H.No.2599, Gali No.17,
Kailash Nagar, Delhi. ... Petitioners
VERSUS
1.Ajay Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Ram Sinhar Rai
R/o B15, Road No.5, G/F, Gazipur, Delhi. ... Owner
2.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
A74, Swami Dayanand Marg,
Main Road, Kanti Nagar, Delhi110051. ... Insurer
3.Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Singh
Vill. Phulpura, Post Office Chak Skander,
P.S. Raja Pakar, Distt. Vaishali, Bihar. ... Driver
... Respondents
Represented by : Ms. Sulekha Thakur, Counsel for petitioners.
Mr. K.K. Luthra, Counsel for respondents no.1 & 2. Mr. N.K. Pare, Counsel for respondent no.3.
MAC No.612/10 Page : 1/10
Date of institution : 25.11.2010
Reserved for orders : 24.03.2015
Date of Award : 25.03.2015
A W A R D
1. The petitioners have filed present claim petition under Section 166 & Section 140 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/ for the death of Smt. Manjeet Kaur in the road accident which occurred on 11.03.2009.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.03.2009 at about 9.00 PM, deceased Smt. Manjeet Kaur alongwith her neighbourer Ms. Shashi Bala was returning to home after meeting their lawyer. While they were crossing the road, a Motorcycle bearing registration no. DL7SAR8233 coming from Swarn Cinema side, driven by respondent no.1, at a high speed and negligent manner, hit the deceased. Due to impact, the deceased fell down and suffered serious injuries. She was taken to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital. From there, she was taken to GTB Hospital. However she succumbed to her injuries and was declared as brought dead in the hospital. The postmortem of mortal remains was got conducted at Subzi Mandi Mortuary. A case FIR No. 104/09 U/s 279/304A of IPC and Section 3/181 M.V. Act was registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar against respondent no.3. It is stated that the deceased was a MAC No.612/10 Page : 2/10 housemaker and is survived by the petitioners who are the husband and the son.
3. It is stated that respondent no.1 is the owner, respondent no.2 is the insurer and respondent no. 3 is the driver and they all are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, who are legal representatives of the deceased.
4. The respondents no.1 and 3 have filed joint Written Statement in which, it is submitted that the accident happened due to the sole negligence of deceased; that they were falsely implicated in the present case.
5. The Respondent no. 2 in its Written Statement submitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured vide Policy valid for the period from 15.10.2008 to 14.10.2009 issued in the name of respondent no.1. It is contended that DL purportedly given by the driver was rather issued in the name of one Alok Kumar Jain and it was a fake DL.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 20.12.2013 :
i) Whether petitioners prove that they are the LRs of deceased Smt. Manjeet Kaur?
ii) Whether petitioners prove that Smt. Manjeet Kaur suffered fatal injuries in a road accident on 11.03.2009 involving vehicle bearing registration MAC No.612/10 Page : 3/10 no. DL7SAR8332 driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by R1?
iii) To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom?
iv) Relief.
7. Sh. Surjeet Singh, husband of deceased appeared as PW1 and filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 stating therein the facts as stated by him in the petition. He relied upon the documents i.e. his Voter I Card as Ex.PW1/A, Death Certificate of deceased as Ex.PW1/B and Ration Card as Ex.PW1/X/A.
8. Respondent no.1 has examined himself as R1W1 and filed his affidavit Ex.R1W1/A. He has proved his driving licence as R3W1/X/A and certified copy of chargesheet filed by IO mentioning thereunder Notice U/s 133 M.V. Act marked at point C exhibited as Ex.R2W1/X/B.
9. The Insurance Company has examined Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, A.O. as R2W1 who has proved computerized generated insurance policy bearing no. 320303/31/08/01/0000/4652 as Ex.R2W1/1 (colly.) issued in the name of Ajay Kumar Singh for the period of 15.10.08 to 14.10.09 for vehicle no.DL7SAR8332, Report of investigator Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain of insurance company as Ex.R2W1/A, Form 54 and the Driving Licence as Ex.R2W1/B (colly.) and the policy violation of driving licence clause Mark X MAC No.612/10 Page : 4/10 thereunder.
10.I have heard Ld. Counsels for parties, perused the entire material carefully in the light of relevant statutory provisions of law and my observations on the issues are as follows : ISSUES NO. 1 :
Whether petitioners prove that they are the LRs of deceased Smt. Manjeet Kaur?
11.In order to decide this issues, the testimony of PW1 Sh. Surjit Singh, husband of deceased is relevant. He has proved his Voter I Card as Ex.PW1/A. He testified that the deceased left behind himself and petitioner no.2/son as the only legal representatives. The IO has placed the supporting documents showing particulars of the family members of deceased. Testimony of PW1 is corroborated by the DAR filed by IO wherein the name of the petitioners are specified as legal representatives of deceased. The documents on record clearly establish that the petitioner no.1 is husband and petitioner no.2 as son of deceased. On the other hand, no contra evidence has been brought on record by respondents. In such circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. I hold that petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased. The issue is decided accordingly.
MAC No.612/10 Page : 5/10
ISSUE NO.2 :
Whether petitioners prove that Smt. Manjeet Kaur suffered fatal injuries in a road accident on 11.03.2009 involving vehicle bearing registration no. DL7SAR8332 driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by R1?
12.For succeeding in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, it is for the petitioners to prove that the vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The petitioner no. 1 Sh. Surjeet Singh examined himself as PW1 and testified that deceased was his wife and was mother of petitioner no.2. Though, it is stated in affidavit that deceased was an earning member of family but no record in support of this has been produced with regard to her employment and earning.
13.As per Ration Card Ex.PW1/X/A, the year of birth of deceased is shown as 1940. Her age is to be taken as 69 years. In the absence of any material on record as observed above and following the judgment of "Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. vs Master Manmeet Singh & Ors., MAC Appeal No. 590/2011, decided on 30.01.2012, the value of gratuitous services of deceased are to be taken as Nil. However, the contribution of the deceased towards the services at home cannot be all together ignored. As MAC No.612/10 Page : 6/10 such, this court is inclined to grant a lumpsum of Rs.55,000/ as Notional Compensation to the petitioners.
14.In addition the petitioners will be entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/ towards the head of love and affection, Rs.10,000/ towards funeral expenses, 10,000/ towards loss of consortium. Since the deceased was home maker, she is not entitled for compensation under the head Loss of Estate as per judgment Royal Sundram (Supra). Thus, the petitioners are entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/.
LIABILITY
15.In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297, it was observed as :
"The breach of policy conditions, e.g disqualification of driver of invalid driving license of the driver, as contained in subsection (2) (a) (ii) of section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties."
The aforesaid decision of Three Judge Bench was later relied upon by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tulna Devi & Ors., (2009) ACJ 581.
16.The insurance company has examined Sh. Sunil Kumar Verma, MAC No.612/10 Page : 7/10 A.O. as R2W1. He testified that the driver Ashok Kumar had a fake driving licence as the driving licence no. 8031/Ag/06 was in fact issued by the Licencing Authority, Agra in the name of one Alok Kumar Jain S/o Sh. A. Kumar Jain for motorcycle and LMV (Private) only. The Report Ex.R2W1/A of the Surveyor suggests so. R2W1 testified that the offending vehicle was duly insured vide policy Ex.R2W1/1.
17.R2W2 Sh. Jitender Kumar Dixit, Junior Assistant from RTO, Agra appeared on behalf of insurance company and proved the record of DL no. 8031/Ag/06. He also stated that this driving licence was issued in favour of Alok Kumar Jain for a period from 5.7.2006 to 4.7.2026. He has proved the said record as Ex.R2W2/A and the Licencing Authority Form No.54 of DL as R2W2/B in the name of one Alok Kumar Jain.
18.Ex.R2W1/A is the DL Verification Report produced from the Licencing Authority, Agra and Ex.R2W1/B is the verification report filed by IO during investigation. As per these, the driving licence relied upon by the driver was in fact issued in the name of someone else. The driver examined himself as R1W1 and by way of affidavit testified that he had a valid DL at the time of accident. The record produced by the company as well as the report of IO amply shows the falsity of his deposition. An inference has to be MAC No.612/10 Page : 8/10 drawn that there was no valid driving licence with the driver at the time of accident. Therefore, respondent no.2 cannot be fastened with the liability. The insurance policy conditions have been violated and therefore, respondent no.2 is entitled to recovery rights against respondents no. 1 and 3 as per law.
19.This court observes that the driver filed a false affidavit to the effect that he had the driving licence no.8031/Ag/2006 having issued in his name from Licencing Authority, Agra. The record per contra, finds the same DL having issued on 05.07.2006 by the authority in the name of one Alok Kumar Jain. The driver is liable to the perjury committed before the court and is also liable for bringing false documents on record in support of his defence. DCP (East) in such circumstances, is hereby directed to get an FIR registered against the false stand taken by the driver throughout the proceedings and to get the matter inquired/investigated against the driver and the persons involved in the nexus.
AWARD
20.Resultantly, the petition stands allowed. The respondent No. 2/Insurance company, in the first instance, is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ to the petitioner no.1 (husband of deceased) but with liberty to recover the same from respondents MAC No.612/10 Page : 9/10 no.1 and 3 as per law. The Insurance company is directed to pay the compensation to the petitioners within one month alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization.
21.The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by the Insurance Company, within 30 days in the court. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the Insurance Company with a cost of Rs.10,000/.
22.The DCP (East) in terms of the directions in para no.19 to file a copy of FIR and the status report of the inquiry/investigation within 15 days.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court Dated : 25th March, 2015 (MS. RAVINDER BEDI) PRESIDING OFFICER MACT (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
MAC No.612/10 Page : 10/10
MAC NO. 612/10
25.03.2015
Present : Ld. Counsels for the parties.
Vide separate order announced in the open court today, the petition stands allowed. The respondent No.2/Insurance company, in the first instance, is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ to the petitioner no.1 (husband of deceased) but with liberty to recover the same from respondents no.1 and 3 as per law. The Insurance company is directed to pay the compensation to the petitioners within one month alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization.
The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by the Insurance Company, within 30 days in the court. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the Insurance Company with a cost of Rs.10,000/.
The DCP (East) in terms of the directions in para no.19 to file a copy of FIR and the status report of the inquiry/investigation within 15 days.
List for reporting compliance on 16.05.2015.
(MS. RAVINDER BEDI)
P.O.MACT (EAST)/KKD./DELHI/25.03.2015
MAC No.612/10 Page : 11/10