Bangalore District Court
Sri.S.V.Sridhar Bhat vs The Managing Partner on 27 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated this 27th day of June 2019.
Present: SRI.MAHANTESH S.DARAGAD
B.Sc., LL.B.,
III ADDL. JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.No.626/2018
PETITIONERS: 1. Sri.S.V.Sridhar Bhat
S/o. Venkataramana Bhat,
Aged about 46 years,
2. Master Vedanth Bhat,
S/o. Sri.S.V.Sridhar Bhat,
Aged about 3 years,
Being minor represented by his
Natural guardian and father
Sri.S.V.Sridhar Bhat.
Both are R/at No.80, Bellezea Villa,
Narayana Ghatta Village,
Dommasandra, Chandapura Road,
Bengaluru-560099.
(By Pleader Sri.SCH)
/Vs/
2 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Managing Partner,
M/s.Durgamba Motors,
Chikka Bajane Mandira Street,
Sarjapur, Sarjapura Post,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru-562125.
(By pleader Sri.MK)
2. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Kundapura Branch, 1st Floor,
Pushpa Building Main Roa,
Kundapura, Udupi District.
(By pleader Sri.ATS)
3. The Managing Director,
KSRTC, Mangalore Division,
Mangalore.
Also At: K.H.Road,
Bengaluru.
(By pleader Sri.MP)
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have filed this claim petition against the respondents U/S. 166 of M.V. Act for seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of Smt.Yashoda S. Bhat W/o.S.V.Sridhar Bhat in a road traffic accident. 3 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18
2. The brief contents of petition are as under:
The contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Yashoda.S.Bhat was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 42 years, she was a Business women and earning Rs.2,50,000/-p.m. Further the contention of the petitioners is that, they are the husband and son of deceased Yashoda.S.Bhat.
3. Further the allegation of the petitioners is that, on 5-12-2017 Yashoda.S.Bhat was traveling as a passenger from Bengaluru to Udupi in Durgamba travels bus bearing Reg. No.KA-51-D-7177 and when the said bus reached near Hedurga Cross, Alur Taluk, Hassan at about 2.45 A.M., at that time, the driver of the said bus drive the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.KA-19-F-2980. Due to the said impact, Yashoda.S.Bhat sustained grievous injuries on her vital organs and immediately she was shifted to Mangala hospital, Hassan, wherein, after 4 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 examination, doctors declared that she was brought dead and thereafter post mortem was conducted. After the postmortem, the petitioners have received the dead body and conducted the funeral and obsequies ceremony. The driver of the KSRTC bus has lodged complaint against the driver of the Durgamba bus in Alur PS and same was registered in Cr.No.399/2017.
4. The contention of the petitioners is that, respondent No.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of Durgamba bus and respondent No.3 is the owner of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-19-F-2980 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Durgamba bus as well as driver of KSRTC bus and as such, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Contending the above facts, they pray to grant for compensation with interest and cost.
5 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18
5. In response to the petition notice, the respondent No.1 and 3 have appeared before the court through their respective counsel and filed their common objection statement. The respondent No.2 and 4 have not appeared before the court. Accordingly, they were placed exparte.
6. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent no.1 as under:
The contention of the respondent No.1 is that, the claim petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further the Respondent No.1 has contended that, the alleged accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Durgamba bus bearing Reg. No.KA-51-D-7177, on the other hand, the alleged accident has occurred due rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bearing Reg.No.KA-19-F-2980. Further he contended that, the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-51-D-7177 had 6 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and said bus was insured with Respondent No.2 and policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence, the liability is fixed on Respondent No.2. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the claim petition as against the respondent No.1 with cost.
7. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent no.2 as under:
The contention of the respondent No.2 is that, the claim petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further he contended that, the owner of the alleged Durgamba bus has not complied the provision of Sec.134(c) of M.V.Act. Further the respondent No.1 has contended that, the driver of the Durgamba bus had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident and also the alleged vehicle had no valid fitness 7 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 certificate and permit to ply on the route of alleged accident and as such, the owner of the vehicle has violated the policy conditions. Hence, the respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1 i.e. owner of the alleged bus and not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners . Further the Respondent No.2 has contended that, the alleged accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-19-F-2980. Further the Respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of policy to the alleged vehicle and the liability if any is subject to terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. Further the respondent No.2 has denied the age, occupation and income of the of deceased and relationship between the petitioners and the deceased and dependency of them upon the income of deceased. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the claim petition as against the respondent No.2 with cost.8 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18
8. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent no.3 as under:
The contention of the respondent No.3 is that, the claim petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further he contended that, the alleged accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Durgamba bus bearing Reg.No.KA-51-D-7177. Further he contended that, the alleged accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bearing Reg.No.KA-19-F-2980. Further the Respondent No.3 has contended that, the driver of the KSRTC bus has lodged complaint against the driver of the Durgamba bus and concerned police have investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the driver of Durgamba bus. Hence, this Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Contending the 9 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 above facts, he prays to dismiss the claim petition as against the respondent No.3 with cost.
9. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1.Whether the petitioners prove that Smt.Yashodha.S.Bhat W/o.S.V.Sridhar Bhat died due to injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 5-12-2017, at about 2.45 A.M., near Hedurga Cross, on B.M.Road, NH-75 Road, Alur Taluk, Hassan District, involving Durgamba Travels bus bearing Registration No.KA-51-D-7177 belonging to Respondent No.1 and the said vehicle was insured with 2nd respondent?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident has mainly occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the only legal heirs and the dependent of the deceased?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed? if so, at what rate and from whom?10 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18
5. What order or award?
10. In order to prove the case, the petitioner no.1 has examined him as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to P-31.
11. On behalf of the respondent No.3, the driver of the KSRTC bus is examined as RW-1 and got marked his driving license as Ex-R-1. Further income tax officer, Ward -I, Udupi is examined as RW-2 and got marked the documents as Ex-R-2 & 3.
12. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
13. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 to 3 : In the Affirmative Issue No.4: In the partly affirmative Issue No.5 : As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
14. Issues No.1 & 2: These issues are interconnected with each other. Hence in order to avoid the repetition of facts, they are taken together for common consideration. 11 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18
15. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued by reiterating the contents of petition and also evidence put forth by PW.1. Further he argued that, the defence of the respondent No.2 is that, the alleged accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus, but not due to negligence of driver of Durgamba bus. To prove the said fact, the respondent no.2 has not examined any independent eyewitnesses and not produced any rebuttal documents to disprove the case of the petitioners. Further he argued that, the petitioners have proved their case as contended in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement filed by the respondent No.2. Further he argued that, the alleged accident, has occurred due to rash and 12 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus. Further he argued that, the police have filed false charge sheet against the driver of Durgamba bus only, but as per police records, it reveals that, the driver of KSRTC bus also contributed negligence for occurrence of accident. Further he argued that, the petitioner No.1 is not the dependent of deceased as he was carrying the business and deceased was just a sleeping partner. Further he argued that, the petitioners have failed to prove the occupation and income of deceased by producing proper documents and also they have failed to prove their case as contended in the petition by producing proper documents. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the claim petition as against the respondent No.2 with cost.
17. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement filed by the respondent No.3. Further he argued that, the alleged accident, has occurred due to rash and 13 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 negligent driving of the driver of the Durgamba bus. Further he argued that, after investigation, the concerned police have filed charge sheet against the driver of Durgamba bus only. Further he argued that, the PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that, alleged accident has occurred due to sole negligence of driver of Durgamba bus. Further he argued that, the petitioners have failed to prove the occupation and income of deceased by producing proper documents and also they have failed to prove their case as contended in the petition by producing proper documents. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the claim petition as against the respondent No.3 with cost.
18. On rival contention urged by both the counsel, I intend to discuss the case on merits.
On perusal of the evidence available on records, it reveals that, to prove their case, the petitioner no.1 has examined himself as PW.1 and he has stated in his evidence by reiterating 14 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 the contents of petition. Further in support of his evidence, he has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex.P1 to 31.
19. Further to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged Durgamba bus, in support of oral evidence of PW.1, the petitioners have relied upon the copy of police investigation papers and the same are marked as Ex-P-1 to 7 and 27 i.e. ture copy of FIR with complaint, panchanama, MVA report, sketch, Mangala hospital certificate, inquest panchanama, PM report and charge sheet. On perusal of Ex-P-1 and 27 i.e. copy of FIR with complaint and charge sheet, it shows that, Alur Police have registered a case in Cr.No.399/2017 as against the driver of the alleged Durgamba bus and after completion of investigation, the concerned police have filed the charge sheet as against the driver of the alleged bus for the offence punishable U/S 279, 337, 338 and 304 (A) of IPC. 15 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18
20. Thereafter, the counsel for the respondent No.2 & 3 have cross examined the PW.1 at length. On perusal of the entire evidence of the PW-1, it reveals that, the defence of the respondent No.3 is that, the alleged accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus, on the other hand, the defence of the Respondent No.2 is that, the alleged accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Durgamba bus, in which the deceased was proceeding as a passenger.
21. To prove the above said defence, the respondent No.3 has examined the driver of the KSRTC bus who is eyewitness to the alleged accident is examined as RW-1, who has deposed that, at the time of accident he has stationed his bus on the left side of the road, by observing the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Durgamba bus, in spite of it, the driver of said bus dashed against the front portion of the KSRTC bus. Due to the 16 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 said impact, the front right side portion of the bus was damaged, one of the passenger of KSRTC bus was died in the said accident and two passenger of Durgamba bus were died in the said incident. Further he deposed that, the alleged accident has occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Durgamba bus.
22. Further the Respondent No.2 has not examined any independent eyewitness and not produced any rebuttal documents to disbelieve the case of the petitioners. The driver of the alleged private bus and respondent No.1 has not challenged the FIR and charge sheet filed against the driver of the alleged bus.
23. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with contents of above documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the oral version of the PW-1 is supported with 17 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 corroborative documents and as such, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have proved that, the alleged accident has occurred mainly due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged Durgamba bus as contended in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence.
24. Further on perusal of Ex.P6 and 7 i.e., copy of inquest panchanama and PM report, it shows that, Yashodha.S.Bhat has sustained injuries in the above said accident and succumbed to the said injuries.
25. In addenda of this, in a claim for compensation U/S.166 of MV Act, 1988, the claimant is to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 319 (Kusum and others Vs. Satbir and others).
18 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18
26. Considering the above facts and on appreciation of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have proved these issues by producing sufficient documents. Accordingly, I answer these issues in the affirmative.
27. Issue No.3: The specific contention of petitioners is that, petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 is the minor son of deceased Yashoda S.Bhat and they are the legal heirs and dependants of deceased.
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 and 3 have denied the above contention of the petitioners in toto.
28. To prove the relationship, the petitioners have relied upon the inquest panchanama, notarized copy of Aadhaar cards and birth certificate of petitioner No.2 and the same are marked as Ex.P.6, 28, 29 & 31. On perusal of the contents those documents, it reveals that, the petitioner No.1 and 2 are 19 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 the husband and minor son of deceased Yashoda S.Bhat and as such, they are the legal representatives and dependents of deceased. Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have proved this issue by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
29. Issue No.4: The specific contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Yashoda.S.Bhat was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 42 years, she was a business women, proprietor of YASH products and Distributors, Storage and also doing other business and she was also a business consultant and earning Rs.2,50,000/-p.m. Further the contention of the petitioners is that, due to unexpected death of Yashoda.S.Bhat, they have suffered lot and also they have lost their bread earner.
20 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18
30. To prove the age, the petitioners have relied upon Ex-P-26 i.e. notarized copy of PAN card, wherein date of birth of deceased is shown as 20-2-1973 and the same is considered as date of birth of deceased, then it is clear that, as on the date of accident, deceased was aged about 44 years. Hence, the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 14.
31. Further to prove the occupation and income of the deceased, the petitioners have produced the notarized copy of 3 trade license, 2 VAT -7 Registration certificate, GST certificate, Income tax returns and certificate issued by charted accountant and the same are marked as Ex-P-9 to 25. While perusing Ex-P-9 to 11, it revelas that, trade license stands in the name of Smt.Yashoda.S.Bhat i.e. deceased. Further on perusal of Ex-P-12 to 14 i.e. VAT registration certificate and GST certificate, it reveals that, the business registered in the name of deceased Yashoda. Further on perusal of Ex-P-15 to 24 21 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 i.e. income tax returns from 2009-10 to 2018-19, it reveals Yashoda was a business women and he had proprietorship of Yash products.
32. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has strongly argued that, deceased Yashoda was a sleeping partner in the business of petitioner No.1. In order to prove the said fact, she has examined one witness as RW-2- Jayanth D.Ghat, Income-tax officer, Udupi, said witness deposed in respect to income tax returns made by deceased. Further more while perusing the entire evidence of RW-2, there is no concrete evidence to believe that, deceased was a sleeping partner in Yash products and all other business are running under partnership. But trade license stands in the name of deceased Yashoda only and it reveals that, trade business is of deceased Yashoda. Further Ex-P-12 to 14 are VAT registration certificate and GST certificates, which reveals that business 22 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 registered in the name of deceased Yashoda. All these records clearly reveals that deceased Yashoda was doing business in the name of Yash products.
33. Further on perusal of Ex-P-15 to 24 it reads thus:
Exhibits Assessment Gross total Tax paid Year income Ex-P15 2009-10 Rs.2,93,652/- Rs.4,336/- Ex-P16 2010-11 Rs.3,98,519/- Rs.13,869/- Ex-P17 2011-12 Rs.4,40,671/- Rs.16,326/- Ex-P18 2012-13 Rs.6,68,027/- Rs.46,620/- Ex-P19 2013-14 Rs.8,61,220/- Rs.84,291/- Ex-P20 2014-15 Rs.8,82,577/- Rs.91,640/- Ex-P21 2015-16 Rs.11,53,595/- Rs.1,30,990/- Ex-P22 2016-17 Rs.19,46,687/- Rs.3,89,580/- Ex-P23 2017-18 Rs.19,69,927/- Rs.3,80,643/- Ex-P24 2018-19 Rs.19,26,280/- Rs.3,61,910/- 23 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18 In order to find out the monthly income of deceased Yashoda, I have taken last 3 years gross total income. It comes to Rs.58,42,894/-. Further in order to find out gross income per annuam, the same is divided by 3, then annual income comes to Rs.19,47,631/-. For the said amount up to Rs.2,50,000/- is exemption and for the remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/-the income tax is to be calculated at 20% it comes to Rs.2,00,000/- and after Rs.10,00,000/- there is 30% slab of income tax, so, for the remaining amount of Rs.6,97,631/-, 30% of income tax comes to Rs.2,09,289/-. Then the total income tax comes to Rs.4,09,289/-. After deducting the income tax from the amount of Rs.19,47,631/- (Rs.19,47,631/--Rs.4,09,289/-) it comes to Rs.15,38,342/-, the said amount is the annual income of the deceased. Thus, in order find out monthly income, same is divided by 12, then it comes to Rs.1,28,195/-p.m. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the 24 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 opinion that, if the income of deceased is considered as Rs.1,28,195/-p.m., certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
34. Further as stated above that, as on the date of accident, deceased Yashoda was aged about 44 years. Hence, in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a Judgment reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 in Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Pranay Sethi and others) dated 31-10-2017, where the deceased was 40-50 years an addition 25% of the income is to be added towards future prospects. In the instant case the deceased comes under the age group of 40-50 years, 25% of the income is to be added to the income of deceased as future prospects, on such addition, the total income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,60,243/-p.m. (Rs.1,28,195/- + 32,048/- i.e. 25%)
35. At this stage, I have gone through the citation reported in 2018 ACJ page 5 ( Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., 25 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 and others), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, there cannot be distinction where there is evidence of established income and where minimum income is determined on guess work; executing court directed to re-compute entitlement of claimants by adding 25% of income for future prospects and make corresponding deduction towards personal expenses.
36. Further in the said Judgment at para No.12 and 13 it reads thus:
"12. Leaned counsel for the insurance company submitted that in absence of actual evidence of income the principle of adding on account of future prospects can not be applied where income is determined by guess work.
13. We are of the view that there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork in the facts and circumstances of a case. Both the situations stand at the same footing. 26 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18 Accordingly, in the present case, addition of 40% to the income assessed by the Tribunal is required to be made. The Tribunal made addition of 50% while the High Court has deleted the same."
37. Further as stated above that, the petitioner No.1 & 2 are the dependents of the deceased. Hence, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards her personal expenses, on such deduction, the income of the deceased comes (Rs.1.60,243 - 53,414/-) to Rs.1,06,829/-p.m..
38. Further the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.1,06,829/-p.m. (after deducing personal expenses) and the annual income comes to Rs.12,81,948/- the multiplier 14 is applied, then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,79,47,272/-. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.1,79,47,272/- same is rounded 27 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 up to Rs.1,79,47,200/- under the head of loss of dependency.
39. At this juncture I relied the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9581/2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3192/2018) in case of Muama General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others.
In which it is held in para No.8.7 that:
" A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which the compensation it so be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is "Loss of Consortium":
In legal parlance "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium; parental consortium and filial consortium.28 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18 The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband -wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, co-operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation."
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training."
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of 29 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their oral in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflection changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationship. Modern jurisdictions world- over have recognized that the value Further on perusal of child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in case of death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensating for loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
40. In the instant case, petitioner No.1 is the husband of the deceased is entitled for Spousal consortium, which can be 30 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 compensated for loss of "company, society, co-operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation and petitioner No.2 is the are the minor son of the deceased are entitled for Parental consortium for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. Therefore, Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 under the head of loss of consortium.
41. Further the petitioners are the husband and minor son of deceased and as such, in view of the recent Judgment of our Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Pranay Sethi) dated 31-10-2017, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/-under the head of loss of estate and also they are entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/-under the head of transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses.
31 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18
42. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,80,57,200/-under the following heads.
Compensation heads Compensation amount Towards loss of dependency Rs. 1,79,47,200/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/-
Towards transportation of dead body, Rs. 15,000/- funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs. 1,80,57,200/-
43. Liability: On perusal of contents of petition and contents of objection statement, it reveals that, the respondent No.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the alleged Durgamba bus bearing Reg.No.KA-51-D-7177 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further as stated above that, the alleged accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged Durgamba bus and as such, the 32 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2 being the insurer of alleged bus is liable to pay compensation with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Further the petition against the Respondent No.3 is hereby dismissed. Hence, I answer the issue No.4 in the partly affirmative.
44.ISSUE NO.5: In view of my findings on issues No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioners U/S 166 of MV Act is hereby partly allowed as against the Respondent No.1 and 2 only with cost.
The petition against the Respondent No.3 is hereby dismissed.33 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18 The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,80,57,200/- with interest @ 8% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However in view of the policy, the respondent No.2 -Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said compensation amount in this tribunal within two months from the date of this order.
Out of above compensation amount awarded to the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for 40% of compensation amount and the petitioner No.2 is entitled for 60% of the total compensation amount.
With regard to the compensation amount together with interest of petitioner No.1, 40% of 34 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 the amount shall be deposited in any nationalized /schedule bank of his choice, for a period of 3 years and remaining 60% of the amount shall be released in the name of the petitioner No.1 through account payee cheque on proper identification.
After deposit of compensation amount awarded to the minor petitioner No.2, represented by his minor guardian/ father, the entire amount with accrued interest shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner No.2 in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years or till he attains the age of majority whichever is later.
The petitioner No.1 is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. 35 MVC.No.626/2018
SCCH-18 Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 27th day of June 2019).
(MAHANTESH S.DARAGAD) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE List of witnesses examined for petitioner's side:
PW-1: Sridhar Bhat.S.V. List of documents exhibited for petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint Ex-P2 True copy of panchanama Ex-P3 True copy of MVA report Ex-P4 True copy of sketch Ex-P5 True copy of Certificate Ex-P6 True copy of Inquest panchanama Ex-P7 True copy of PM report Ex-P8 Death certificate Ex-P9 to 11 Notarized copy of 3 trade license of deceased Ex-P12 & 13 Notarized copy of 2 VAT -7 Registration certificate Ex-P14 Notarized copy of GST certificate
Ex-P15 to 24 Notarized copy of IT returns Ex-P25 Certificate Ex-P26 Notarized copy of PAN card of deceased 36 MVC.No.626/2018 SCCH-18 Ex-P27 True copy of charge sheet Ex-P28&29 Notarized copy of Aadhaar cards Ex-P30 True copy o f police intimation Ex-P31 Birth certificate of Petitioner No.2 List of witness examined for respondents' side:-
R.W.1: Dinakara R.W.2: Jayanth.D.Ghat
List of documents exhibited for respondents' side:
Ex-R-1: Copy of driving license
Ex-R-2: Income tax returns
Ex-R-3: ITR-3 of petitioner No.1.
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& XXIX ACMM.