Bangalore District Court
B.R. Kalpana Jadav vs Icici Lombard General Insurance on 3 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated: This 03rd day of August 2016
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.No.2762/2015
PETITIONER: 1. B.R. Kalpana Jadav,
W/o Late Shankar Rao Jadav,
Aged 52 years,
2. Santosh Rao Jadav S.
S/o Late Shankar Rao Jadav,
Aged 21 years,
Both are petitioners
R/at No.E-291/5, 3rd Cross,
APC Layout, Thindlu,
Bangalore - 97.
(By Pleader Sri.HVK)
/Vs./
RESPONDENT: 1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co. Ltd.
Prestige Corniche, No.62/1,
2nd Floor, Richmond road,
Bangalore - 25.
(By pleader Sri.SRK)
2 MVC.No.2762/2015
SCCH-18
2. Mr. Jayarama K.
S/o Kempanna Gowda,
Major, R/at: No.NA-735,
BEL Colony,
Near Nagaland Circle,
Jalahalli,
Bangalore - 13.
(By pleader Sri.HVP)
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.80,00,000/- for the death of Sri. Shankar Rao Jadav S/o Late Venkata Rao Jadav in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief contents of petition are as under:
On 17.06.2015, at about 4.05 P.M., the deceased Shankar Rao Jadav was proceeding in a Activa Honda bearing reg. No.KA-02-HJ-2972 as a pillion rider and the said vehicle was ridden by his friend in a slow and cautious manner and when he reached opposite to BEL factory at Jalahalli, Bangalore, at that time, the driver of the car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MP-3588 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the 3 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 Honda Activa vehicle. Due to the said impact, Sri. Shankar Rao Jadav fell down on the road and sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. Thereafter, the public gathered at the spot have shifted the injured to HMT hospital, Bangalore, wherein he has taken first aid and thereafter, the injured Shankar Rao Jadav was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah hospital, Bangalore, wherein he succumbed to the said injuries on 23.06.2015. After the post mortem, the petitioners have received the dead body and conducted the funeral and obsequies ceremony by spending huge amount.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Shankar Rao Jadav was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 54 years, working as an Operator - A at Bharath Electronics Ltd., Bangalore, and drawing salary of Rs.59,181/- P.M. Further the contention of the petitioners is that, the 1st petitioner is the wife and the 2nd petitioner is the son of deceased Shankar Rao Jadav and they are the legal heirs 4 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 and dependants of deceased. The contention of the petitioners is that, due to unexpected death of Shankar Rao Jadav, they have suffered lot and lost their bread earner.
4. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the Car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MP-3588 and the 1st respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle 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 alleged car and as such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Contending the above facts, they pray to grant for compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- with interest and cost.
5. In response to the petition notice, the respondent No.1 & 2 have appeared before the court through their respective counsel and filed their written statement.
6. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent No.1 are as under:
5 MVC.No.2762/2015
SCCH-18 The respondent No.1 contended that, the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further he contended that, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of the Honda Activa were not arrayed as respondents in the petition. Further he contended that, the owner of the vehicle and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provision of Sec.134 (c) and 158 (6) of MV Act. Further he contended that, the driver of the alleged car was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident. Further the contention of the respondent No.2 is that, the alleged car was not insured with the respondent No.1 - Insurance company and as such, the respondent No.1 - Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.2. Further he contended that, the petitioners have proved that, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.1 - Insurance company, then, the liability if any is subject to the terms and condition mentioned in the policy. Further he contended that, the offending car was 6 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 not at all involved in the accident and not caused the accident to the deceased vehicle as alleged in the petition. Further the respondent No.1 has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and relationship of the petitioners with the deceased and dependency of them upon the income of deceased. Further he contended that, the alleged accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the rider of the Honda Activa and as such, the respondent No.1 - Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Further he contended that, the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive, exaggerated and arbitrary one. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition as against him with cost.
7. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent No.2 are as under:
The petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further the respondent No.2 contended that, he is owner of the offending car and the said vehicle was insured with the 1st respondent and the policy was in 7 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 force as on the date of accident and as such, if this court grants the compensation then, the 1st respondent - Insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Further he has denied the involvement of the offending car in the accident as alleged in the petition. Further he has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and also denied the entire accident in toto. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition as against him with cost.
8. On perusal of the contents of petition and on perusal of the documents, the following issues are framed:-
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Sri. Shankar Rao Jadav S/o Venkata Rao Jadav died due to injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 17-06-2015, at about 04:05 p.m, Opp: BEL Factory on BEL Factory Road, Jalahalli, Bengaluru, involving CAR bearing Reg.No.KA-04-MP-3588 belonging to Respondent No.2 and the said vehicle insured with 1st 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?8 MVC.No.2762/2015
SCCH-18
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?
5. What order or award?
9. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to 13. Further in support of her evidence, she has examined the employer of the deceased as PW-2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.14 to 24.
10. To disprove the case of the petitioner and to prove the defence, the respondent No.1 - insurance company has examined the CMO of M.S. Ramaiah hospital as RW-1 and examined the doctor of B.E.L. hospital as RW-2 and got marked the documents Ex.R.1 to 4.
11. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
12. My findings to the above issues are as under: 9 MVC.No.2762/2015
SCCH-18 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
13. Issue Nos.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.
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 and 2. Further he argued that, the defence of the respondent No.1 is that, the alleged vehicle was not involved in the accident and the alleged accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car as contended in the petition.
14. To prove the said fact, the respondent No.1 - Insurance company has examined the CMO of M.S. Ramaiah hospital as RW-1 and medical officer of BEL hospital as RW-2. 10 MVC.No.2762/2015
SCCH-18 But, on perusal of their evidence, it is reveals that, the evidence of RW-1 and 2 is not helpful for the defence taken by the respondent No.1, on the other hand, their evidence is helpful to the version of the petitioners regarding the involvement of the alleged car in the accident. Further to prove the occupation and income of the deceased Shankar Rao Jadav, the petitioners have examined the officer of HR department of BEL company as PW-2 and on perusal of his evidence, it is clear that, at the time of accident, the deceased Shankar Rao Jadav was working as an Operator - A in the BEL company. Further he argued that, on perusal of evidence of PW-2 coupled with copy of income tax returns produced by the PW-2, it is clear that, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.59,181/- P.M. 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.
15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement 11 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 filed by the respondent No.1. Further he argued that, on perusal of the copy of medical documents produced by the petitioners, it shows that, nowhere the registration number of the alleged car was not forth coming in the said document. Further he argued that, the alleged vehicle was not involved in the accident and as such, to implicate the said vehicle, there was a delay of one day in lodging the complaint. Further he argued that, admittedly, deceased Shankar Rao Jadav was aged about 54 years as on the date of accident and as such, he was having only six years of service. Further he argued that, admittedly, the petitioners have received the death benefits of Shankar Rao Jadav from the BEL company and as such, they are not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
Further he argued that, to prove the occupation and income, though, the petitioners have examined the official of the BEL company as PW-2, but, the evidence of PW-2 is not supported with proper documents. Further he argued that, the petitioners have failed to prove their case as alleged in the 12 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 petition by producing proper documents. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition as against respondent No.1.
16. On rival contention urged by both the counsel, I intend to discuss the merits of the case.
On perusal of the records, it reveals that, to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW-1 and she has stated in her evidence by reiterating the contents of petition. Further in support of her evidence, she has produced documents and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 to P.13.
17. Thereafter, the counsel for the respondent No.1 has cross examined the PW-1 at length. In the cross examination, the PW-1 has clearly stated at page No.7 and 11 that:-
"C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃªÀÅ ¥ÀævÀåPÀëªÁV £ÉÆÃqÀzÀ PÁgÀt C¥ÀWÁvÀ ºÉÃUÉ D¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ªÀiÁ»w E®èªAÉ zÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁV, ºËzÀÄ , DzÀgÉ £À£Àß UÁAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀ ¥Àw ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C°è ¸ÉÃjzÀÝ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀiÁvÀæ w½¢gÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ.13 MVC.No.2762/2015
SCCH-18 CfðAiÀÄ°è PÁtô¹zÀ PÁgï £ÀA§gÀ' PÉJ-04-
JA.¦.-3588 ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀÅ C¥ÀWÁvÀ zÀ°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁUÀzÉà EzÀgÝ ÀÆ PÀÆqÁ , CzÀgÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ £À£ß ¥ÀwAiÀÄ ¸ÉÃß»vÀgÀÆ EgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt, D PÁgï ZÁ®PÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¦ügÁå¢ ¤ÃrgÀĪɪÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ PÁgï C¥ÀWÁvÀz° À è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁUÀzÉà EzÀgÝ ÀÆ PÀÆqÁ, ªÀiÁgÀ£ÉAiÀÄ ¢£À D PÁgï£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár «¼ÀA§ªÁV CgÀÄuïPÀĪÀiÁgï EªÀgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¦ügÁåz£À ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ PÉÆr¹gÀĪɪÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that, the defence of the respondent No.1 is that, the alleged car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MP-3588 was not involved in the accident and not caused the accident to the deceased Shankar Rao Jadav as alleged in the petition.
18. To prove the said fact, the respondent No.1 has examined the CMO of M.S. Ramaiah hospital as RW-1 and medical officer of BEL company as RW-2. But, on perusal of the 14 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 evidence of RW-1 and 2, it appears that, the evidence of RW-1 and 2 are not helpful to the defence taken by the respondent No.1. On the other hand, on perusal of document at page No.6 of Ex.R.1 i.e., case sheet, wherein, the history of accident is shown as under:-
"Alleged H/o RTA at 4.15 p.m. on
17.06.2015 outside BEL Factory. H/o Riding
pillion on a two-wheeler and H/o colliding with 4- wheeler."
Further on perusal of Ex.R.3 i.e., copy of accident register, wherein, the history of accident is shown as under:-
"Alleged history of RTA, 2 wheeler hit by a white swift car, patient being 2 wheeler pillion rider."
On perusal of the above contents, it is clear that, the white color swift car has caused the accident to the deceased Shankar Rao Jadav.
19. Further on perusal of Ex.P.4 i.e., copy of MVA report, wherein, the make and color of the vehicle is shown that, 15 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 Maruthi Swift, White. Considering the above facts and also looking to the contents of Ex.R.1 and 3 and coupled with contents of Ex.P.4, it appears that, the alleged vehicle was involved in the accident. Further, I am of the opinion that, as per the version of respondent No.1, if at all the alleged car was not involved in the accident, then, it was the duty of the respondent No.1 to examine the driver of the car or anyone of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet. But, the respondent No.1 did not do so.
20. On the other hand, on perusal of evidence of PW-1, it reveals that, though the counsel for the respondent No.1 has cross examined the PW-1 at length, but nothing has been elicited from her to disbelieve her version regarding the involvement of the alleged car in the accident and also regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car.
21. Further to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car, in support of oral evidence, the petitioners have relied upon the copy of police investigation papers and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 to 7. On perusal of 16 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 Ex.P.1 and 7 i.e., copy of FIR with complaint and charge sheet, it appears that, Jalahalli traffic police have registered a case against the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-04-MP-3588 and after completion of investigation, the concerned police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the said vehicle.
22. 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 that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car as contended in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence.
23. Further on perusal of Ex.P.5 and 6 i.e., copy of Inquest Panchanama and PM report, it appears that, Shankar Rao Jadav has sustained grievous injuries in the above said accident and succumbed to the said injuries on 23.06.2015.
24. On appreciation of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, 17 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 the petitioners have proved these issues by producing sufficient documents. Accordingly, I answer these issues are in the affirmative.
25. Issue No.3:- The specific contention of the petitioners is that, petitioner No.1 is the wife and the petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased Shankar Rao Jadav and they are the legal heirs and dependants of deceased.
On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has disputed the said facts.
26. To prove the relationship, the petitioners have relied upon the copy of inquest panchanama and copy of ration card and the same are marked as Ex.P.5 and 8. On perusal of the contents of Ex.P.5 and 8, it reveals that, the petitioner No.1 is the wife and the petitioner No.2 is the son of deceased Shankar Rao Jadav. Further on perusal of evidence of PW-1, it appears that, at present, the petitioner No.2 is studying B.E. course. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for 18 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners are the legal heirs and dependants of deceased. 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 is in the Affirmative.
27. Issue No.4:- The specific contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Shankar Rao Jadav was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 54 years, working as an 'Operator-A' at Bharath Electronics Ltd. and drawing salary of Rs.59,181/- P.M. Further the contention of the petitioners is that, due to unexpected death of Shankar Rao Jadav, they have suffered lot and they have lost their bread earner.
On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased.
28. To prove the occupation and income of the deceased, the petitioners have examined the officer of HR department of BEL company as PW-2, who has stated that, deceased Shankar 19 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 Rao Jadav was working as an 'Operator-A' in the said company and drawing salary of Rs.50,556/- P.M. Further he has stated that, if deceased Shankar Rao Jadav were alive, he would have got one more promotion as an 'Operator-6', then, his salary and increment would have been increased.
In support of his evidence, he has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex.P.15 to 24 i.e., copy of appointment letter, pay slips, IT returns for the year 2012- 2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and Form No.12.
29. Thereafter, the counsel for the respondent No.1 has cross examined the PW-2 at length. In the cross examination, the PW-2 has clearly stated at page No.7 and 8 that:-
"ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ RArPÉ 1 gÀ°è ±ÀAPÀgÀgÁªï eÁzÀªï EªÀgÀÄ D¥ÀgÉÃlgï-6 JAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ºÉÆAzÀĪÀ ¸ÁzÀsåvÉ EzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D jÃw ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ºÉÆA¢zÀ°è CªÀgÀ ¸ÀA§¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EAQæªÉÄAmï ºÉZÁÑUÀÄwÛvÉAÛ zÀÄ PÁtô¹zÀÄÝ , D jÃw CªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ºÉÆA¢ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrzÀ° Ý è JµÀÄÖ ¸ÀA§¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 20 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 EAQæªÉÄAmï §gÀÄwÛvÉÛAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä £Á£ÉãÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ zÁR¯É ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹®è.
ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuAÉ iÀÄ RArPÉ 1 gÀ°è PÁtô¹zÀAvÉ ªÀÄÊvÀ ±ÀAPÀgÀgÁªï eÁzÀªï EªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ gÀÆ. 50,556/- ¸ÀA§¼À EgÀzÉà gÀÆ.21933/- ªÀiÁvÀæ ¸ÀA§¼À EvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
On perusal of above evidence, it appears that, though, the counsel for the respondent No.1 has cross examined the PW-2 at length, but, nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version. On the other hand, on perusal of evidence of PW-2, it appears that, deceased Shankar Rao Jadav was working as 'Operator-A' at Bharath Electronics Ltd., Bangalore, at the time of accident.
30. Further on perusal of Ex.P.15 i.e., certificate, it shows that, deceased Shankar Rao Jadav was drawing salary of Rs.50,556/- P.M. and also eligible for 40% of his annual basic pay as perks. Further on perusal of Ex.P.21 and 22 i.e., copy of form No.12-B and copy of Form No.16, it shows that, deceased 21 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 Shankar Rao Jadav has declared his income as Rs.5,60,520/- for the period from 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2014 and further on perusal of Ex.P.23 and 24 i.e., copy of Form No.12-B and copy of Form No.16, it shows that, the deceased Shankar Rao Jadav has declared his income as Rs.7,14,846/- for the period from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015.
Considering the above facts and also on perusal of evidence of PW-1 and 2 coupled with Ex.P.22 and 24 i.e., copy of Form No.16 and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.7,14,846/- P.A., certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
31. Further on perusal of Ex.P.23 and 24 i.e., copy of Form No.12-B and Form No.16, it shows that, deceased has shown his income as Rs.7,14,846/- and paid the tax of Rs.17,349/-. Further on perusal of those documents, wherein, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was deducted in total income U/S 80 U (1) and 80 C (1) of Income Tax Act but the PW-1 has not produced any document to show that, the deceased has utilized the said 22 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under the provision of Sec.80 U (1) and 80 C (1) of Income Tax Act.
32. Further as per the income tax slab for assessment year 2015-16, the tax to the above income (i.e., Rs.7,14,846/-) would be Rs.39,108/-. But as stated above that, in Ex.P.23 and 24 i.e., copy of Form No.12 and copy of Form No.16, the deceased has paid tax for Rs.17,349/-. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have not filed the necessary documents to show that, the income tax authority has accepted the said tax paid by the deceased and the calculation done by the deceased was correct. But, the petitioners have not produced the said documents.
Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, as per the income tax slab for the year 2015-16, if an amount of Rs.39,108/- was deducted as tax towards income of Rs.7,14,846/-, then, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,75,738/- P.A. and if it is taken as Rs.6,75,000/- P.A., certainly it would meet the ends of justice. 23 MVC.No.2762/2015
SCCH-18
33. Further as stated above that, there are two dependants. Hence, 1/3rd of the income of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal expenses, on such deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,50,000/- (6,75,000-2,25,00).
34. Further on perusal of Ex.P.10 i.e., copy of PAN card, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 5.9.1961 and the same is considered as date of birth of the deceased, then, it is clear that, as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 54 years. Hence, the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is "11".
35. Further on perusal of evidence of PW-2 coupled with Ex.P.16 i.e., copy of appointment order, it reveals that, since "December-1987", the deceased Shankar Rao Jadav was working in Bharath Electronics Ltd. and the said job was permanent job and the deceased was a permanent employee.
Hence, in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a citation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 (Smt. Sarla 24 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 Verma and others Vs. DTPC and others) and also recent citation of our Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2015 ACJ 1985 ( Munnalal Jain and another Vs. Vipinkumar singh and others) and 2015 ACJ 1286 (Asha Verma and others Vs. Maharaj singh and others), if 15% of the income is to be added to the income of the deceased as future prospects, on such addition, the total income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,17,500/-P.A. (Rs.4,50,000 + 67,500) and the same is considered as income of the deceased, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
36. Further as stated above that, the income of the deceased is taken Rs.5,17,000/- P.A. and the multiplier 11 is applied, then the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.56,87,000/- (Rs.5,17,000X11). Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.56,87,000/- under the head of loss of dependency.
37. Further the petitioner No.1 being the wife of deceased and as such, she is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/-under the head of loss of consortium. 25 MVC.No.2762/2015
SCCH-18
38. Further the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection and they are also entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses.
39. Further the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of estate.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.58,07,000/-under the following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation amount Towards loss of dependency Rs. 56,87,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 30,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 30,000/- Towards transportation of dead body, Rs. 30,000/-
funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses
Towards loss of estate Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs. 58,07,000/-
40. LIABILITY: On perusal of contents of petition and contents of objection statement filed by the respondent No.1, it 26 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 appears that the respondent No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.1 is the insurer of the offending car and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further as stated above that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car. Hence, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.1 being the insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation of Rs.58,07,000/-
with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Hence, I answer the issue No.4 in the partly affirmative.
41. Issue No.5: In view of my findings, on Issue No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioners U/S 166 of MV Act is hereby partly allowed with cost. 27 MVC.No.2762/2015
SCCH-18 The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.58,07,000/- with interest @ 9% 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.1 insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
Out of the above compensation amount, the petitioner no.1 is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.43,55,000/- and the petitioner No.2 is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.14,52,000/-.
Out of the above entitlement of compensation amount, 50% each of the amount shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner No.1 and 2 in any nationalized/schedule bank of petitioner's choice, 28 MVC.No.2762/2015 SCCH-18 for a period of 5 years and remaining amount with accrued interest shall be paid to them through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 03rd day of August 2016).
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
P.W.1. B.R. Kalpana Jadav P.W.2. Naveen Singh List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex-P2 True copy of Panchanama
Ex-P3 True copy of Hand sketch
Ex-P4 True copy of MVI report
Ex-P5 True copy of Inquest report
Ex-P6 True copy of PM report
Ex-P7 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex-P8 Notarized copy of the ration card
Ex-P9 Notarized copy of the employee id card
29 MVC.No.2762/2015
SCCH-18
Ex-P10 Notarized copy of the PAN card
Ex-P11 Notarized copy of the Appointment order
Ex-P12 Pay slip
Ex-P13 Form No.16
Ex-P14 Notarized copy of the employee id card of PW-2
Ex-P15 Salary certificate
Ex-P16 Notarized copy of the appointment order
Ex-P17-18 Pay slip of May and June 2015
Ex-P19 Form No.12
Ex-P20 Form No.16
Ex-P21 Form No.12
Ex-P22 Form No.16
Ex-P23 Form No.12
Ex-P24 Form No.16
List of witnesses examined on respondent's side:
RW1 D. Sudhakar RW2 Somashekar
List of documents exhibited on respondent's side:
Ex.R1 Inpatient record
Ex.R2 2 x-rays
Ex.R3 True extract of Accident Register
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& XXIX ACMM.