SUNITA Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 20/2/2014, Sube Singh along with his relative Bhim Singh had started their journey for Gurgaon on their separate motorcycles; Sube Singh was driving motorcycle having registration No.HR26-AD/9035 and he had started his journey about 20-25 minutes prior to Bhim Singh; Bhim Singh had stopped at petrol pump for getting fuel and when he reached in front of Polytechnic College, Manesar while driving his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR26R/0360, he saw several people assembled on the road; Bhim Singh stopped his motorcycle and saw that Sube Singh having suffered injuries was lying on the road along with his motorcycle; Sube Singh was taken to General Hospital, Gurgaon by arranging a private vehicle but he was declared brought dead there; Bhim Singh had lodged report regarding the accident to the police of Police Station Manesar and formal FIR No.62 dtd. 20/2/2014 for the offences under Ss. 279, 304-A and 427 IPC was registered against unknown person and unknown vehicle; subsequently during the course of investigation, it transpired that the mishap had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of Innova car bearing registration No.DL3 CAJ 6036 (hereinafter referred to as the offending car) by Sandeep Kumar - respondent No.l. Smt.Sunita, aged about 38 years - widow, Ms.Priyanka aged about 20 years - daughter, Ms.Archna, aged about 13 years - minor daughter and Master Manjeet aged about 6 years - minor son of Sube Singh had brought claim petition under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against respondents i.e. Sandeep Kumar - driver, Dharambir Yadav - owner and Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd. -insurer of the offending car, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.30.00 lakhs with interest and cost.

(2.) As per the version of the claimants at the time of his death, deceased Sube Singh was aged about 44 years and he was employed as a security guard with M/s BS Enterprises, Kapriwas, Dharuhera and getting monthly salary of Rs.8,000.00 from that employment; in addition to that avocation, he was doing work of cattle rearing and allied activities from where he managed to earn additional sum of Rs.20,000.00 per month, in that way, his total income was Rs.28,000.00 per month and the claimants were dependent upon his earnings.

(3.) On being put to notice, all the three respondents had appeared and filed written statements. Respondents No.l and 2 had filed a joint written statement, whereas respondent No.3 came up with a separate written statement.