Bangalore District Court
) Ms.Sindhu Chepuri vs ) Shri Gopi Anichetty on 8 October, 2021
SCCH - 1 1 MVC No.839/2018
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES &
MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT
BENGALURU
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER'2021
PRESENT : SMT.PRABHAVATI M.HIREMATH, B.A.,LL.B., (Spl.,)
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.,
M.V.C. No. 839/2018
PETITIONERS: 1) Ms.SINDHU CHEPURI,
D/o.Late Ramesh Babu Chepuri,
Aged about 28 years,
No.1, Ist Floor, Vijayalakshmi Nilaya,
Dattatreyanagar,
8th A Main Road,
Hosakerehalli,
Bengaluru 560 085.
2) MRS.P.RANJITHA,
W/o.Ramanath Babu,
D/o.Late Ramesh Babu Chepuri,
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at No.26,
Sirihangam,
Flat No.101, Uttarhalli,
Bengaluru 560 085.
Petitioners are represented by Narayanaswamy,
G., Advocate.
- V/s -
RESPONDENTS: 1) SHRI GOPI ANICHETTY
MUNICHANDRAIAH,
S/o.A.Munichandraiah,
No.9-384, Pallipattu Road,
Nagari, Chittoor District,
Nagari, Chittoor District.
(RC Owner ) AP 27 AD 3636.
SCCH - 1 2 MVC No.839/2018
2) SRI ADUSUMELLI MUNIRATHNAM,
S/o.Late Chengappa,
No.5-50, Bodevaripalli (V),
Edigapalli (P.O.),
Punganuru (M),
Chittoor District.
Policy Holder of AP 27 AD 3636
2nd respondent's Lrs.
2(a) MR.NIRMALA,
W/o.Adusumeli, Munirathnam,
Major.
2(b) MS.KIRANMAYI,
W/o.Adusumeli, Munirathnam,
Aged about 25 years,
2(c) Ms.MOUNIKA,
W/o.Adusumeli, Munirathnam,
Aged about 23 years,
All are residing at No.5-50, Bodevaripalli,
Edigapalli (PO), Punganuru (M),
Chittoor District.
Policy Holder of AP 27/AD.3636.
3.SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
E-8, RIICo Industrial Area,
Sitapura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302 022.
Insurer of Vehicle bearing No.AP.27/AD3636
Policy No.10003/31/15/412992, valid from
18.11.2014 to 17.11.2015.
Respondent No.1 - Exparte
Respondent No.2 - Exparte
Respondent No.3 - K.M.Ravi, Advocate
*******
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
SCCH - 1 3 MVC No.839/2018 (2) Facts of the case, in brief, are that:
Petitioners No.1 and 2 are the daughters of C.Ramesh Babu. To attend the house warming ceremony of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Madanapalli, Ramesh Babu along with other court staff had taken Innova Car bearing No.AP.27/AD.3636 belonging to the second respondent and they proceeded from Madanapalli at 11.00 pm., to Kurnool.
(3) The driver of the said Innova car driven the same in rash or negligent manner. He lost control over the vehicle and hit to the big boulder situated on the side of the road and then hit against a tree, thereby Ramesh Babu sustained grievous head injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot. Inmate of the car viz., Singaraiah, working as Junior Assistant at the 2 nd AJCJ Court, Madanapalle called ambulance and lodged complaint to the Police.
(4) During the life time of Ramesh Babu, marriage of the first petitioner was solemnized on 08.03.2015. After the sudden untimely death of Ramesh Babu on 07.08.2015, the first petitioner was required to take care of the family as her mother had not come out of the shock. As the petitioner No.1 left the matrimonial home, the husband of the petitioner No.1 filed petition for dissolution of marriage. In view of the demise of Ramesh Babu and followed by the death of his wife, there was no body to share her grief and also to support them. The second petitioner is residing at Bengaluru along with her husband. Now the first petitioner is residing with the second petitioner and depending on SCCH - 1 4 MVC No.839/2018 her sister and brother in law.
(5) Prior to the accident, deceased Ramesh Babu was working as Superintendent in the Court of Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Madanapalle and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.77,759/- and he was due for promotion. Because of the shock on account of death of her husband, the petitioner's mother died within 4 months from the date of death of her husband. The first petitioner was entirely depending on her father and entitled for compensation. (6) The respondent No.1 being the owner and the respondent No.3 being the insured, original respondent No.2 being the Insurance Policy holder, are liable to pay compensation.
(7) During the pendency of the petition, the respondent No.2 died. His Lrs were brought on record.
(8) After service of notice of this petition, the respondent No.1 and Lrs of respondent No.2 remained absent and place exparte and respondent No.3 Insurance Company entered appearance through its advocate and filed written statement.
(9) Contentions raised by the respondent No.3 in its statement of objections, in brief, are:
The averments in the petition are denied in toto except the fact that a Private Car Policy was issued in respect of the vehicle NoAP.27/AD.3636 and as on the date of accident, the said policy was in force. The liability of the SCCH - 1 5 MVC No.839/2018 respondent No.3 is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver of the vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle knowingly entrusted the vehicle to a person who had no valid and effective driving licence. The owner of the vehicle has not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 134(c) of the MV Act and the jurisdictional Police have not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Involvement of the vehicle AP.27/AD.3636 in the alleged accident is disputed. The averment regarding the age, avocation and income of the deceased and that the deceased was due for promotion, is denied. The averment in the petition that petitioner No.1 had left the matrimonial home and depending on her father is denied. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was being used for hire and reward. The deceased had hired the vehicle on rent to go to marriage. The Policy issued by the respondent No.3 is a private car policy. But the owner of the vehicle used the same for commercial purpose. Therefore there is violation of the policy conditions. The amount of compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and baseless and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
(10) From the above pleadings of the parties, my predecessor in Office has framed the following issues:
1) Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 07.08.2015 at about 02.00 am., near Jwalapuram Cross, Bathalapalli Mandal, Ananthapuram District within the jurisdiction of Bathalapalli Police Station on account of rash and negligent SCCH - 1 6 MVC No.839/2018 driving of the Innova Car bearing registration No.AP.27/AD.3636 by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3) What order ?
(11) In support of the petitioners' case, petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW 1 and one witness has been examined as PW.2 and got marked in all 21 documents as Ex.P.1 to 21. In support of respondent No.3's case, its Legal Manager is examined as RW.1 and one document is got marked as Ex.R.1.
(12) Heard arguments on both sides.
(13) For the reasons stated in the subsequent paragraphs I answer the
above Issues as follows:-
Issue No.1 - In the affirmative,
Issue No.2 -Accordingly,
Issue No.3 - As per final Order.
REASONS
(14) Issue No.1:- It is the case of the petitioners that due to rash or
negligent act of driving on the part of the driver of the Innova Car No.AP.27/AD.3636 on 17.08.2015 at about 02.00 am., near Jwalapuram Cross, Bathalapalli Mandal, Ananthapuram District, the accident occurred.
(15) To prove the same, the petitioners relied on the police records.
SCCH - 1 7 MVC No.839/2018 Even though the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company has taken a specific contention that there is no involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident and there is no rash or negligent act of driving on the part of the driver of the Innova car, but except examining the Legal Manager, the respondent No.3 has not adduced any evidence.
(16) PW 1 and RW 1 are not eye witnesses to the accident. Therefore, to prove the negligent act on the part of the driver of the Innova car, except Police records, nothing is on record.
(17) Ex.P.1 is the FIR. Ex.P.2 is the Complaint. English translation of Ex.P.2 is at Ex.P.2(a). ExP.5 is the Charge Sheet. From going through Ex.P.1, it is clear that on the basis of the complaint lodged by one N.Singaraiah, Junior Assistant of II Addl.CJM Court, Madanapalli, the case is registered for the offence punishable under Section 337 and 304(A) of IPC. From going through Ex.P.5 - Charge Sheet, it is clear that after registration of the case, statement of blood relatives of the deceased were recorded at the time of panchanama and eye witness to the accident, who are inmates of the car and also the statement of owner of the car are also recorded. From the Charge Sheet, it is clear that 4 inmates of the car have sustained injuries in the accident. They are shown as Witness No.5 to 9 and their statement is recorded by the Investigating Officer. On completion of investigation, Charge Sheet is filed against the driver of the Innova Car.
SCCH - 1 8 MVC No.839/2018
(18) From the Police records, it is clear that without interference of any
other vehicle or anything, the moving vehicle had gone to the left side of the road and dashed against the boulder and thereafter against the tree. The mode of occurrence of the accident itself is sufficient to come to the conclusion that only due to rash or negligent act of driving on the part of the driver of the Innova Car, the accident occurred. The legal maxim "res-ipsa loquitor" is applicable to the case on hand, since the facts of the case speak for themselves. During the course of cross-examination of PW 1, the contents of Police records are not disputed.
(19) Therefore, in the absence of evidence of eyewitness to the accident, based on the documentary evidence, the petitioners have proved that due to rash or negligent act of driving on the part of the driver of the Innova Car, the accident occurred.
(20) From the Inquest Panchanama and PM Report produced as per Ex.P.3 and P.4, the petitioners have proved that in the said accident, the petitioners' father having suffered injuries in the accident, succumbed to the same at the spot. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
(21) Issue No.2:- It is the case of the respondent No.3 that the present petitioners not the dependent members on their deceased father. On the contrary, it is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 was married and at the time of filing of this petition, her husband has filed a matrimonial case against her and she is staying with her father and dependent on him. During the pendency of this SCCH - 1 9 MVC No.839/2018 petition, decree was passed by the Prl.Civil Judge, Madanapalli in OP No.168/2015 filed under Section 13(1)(1a)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. As per Ex.P.15 order, it is clear that there was a compromise between the petitioner No.1 and her husband and a compromise petition was filed. The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and her husband was dissolved. Petitioner No.1's husband has paid Rs.12,50,000/- to the petitioner No.1 by way of Demand Draft on 26.02.2020 towards full settlement of past and future maintenance. Ex.P.9 is the copy of the petition under Rule 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the husband of the petitioner No.1 for dissolution of the marriage. From the said document, it is clear that the marriage was solemnised on 08.03.2015 and it is the specific case of the husband of the petitioner No.1 that the marriage was not consummated as the petitioner No.1 has not lead marital life with her husband.
(22) From the averments of the petition, it is clear that from the first week of April'2015, the petitioner No.1 is staying with her parents. During the course of cross-examination of PW 1, she has admitted that her application for interim maintenance came to be rejected. Prior to the marriage, she was working.
In the light of the above said facts, now the question is whether the petitioner No.1 can be considered as the dependent member on her father, is to be seen.
(23) The learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently argued that even though the marriage was solemnised, she has not lead marital life as within a short span of period, her father died and she took the responsibility of the family and within 4 months from the date of death of her father, due to shock, her SCCH - 1 10 MVC No.839/2018 mother also died. In view of the subsequent developments and divorce between the petitioner No.1 and her husband, the petitioner No.1 was depending on her father. In support of his arguments, the learned advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance on the principles laiddown by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in 2020 ACJ 759 (National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Birendar and others). In para 15 of the said judgment, Their Lordships held that "Legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major, married and earning sons being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only".
(24) As per the facts of the reported judgment, major sons had a meager income and they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother. Therefore, Their Lordships have awarded compensation on the head of loss of dependency also.
(25) In the light of the above said principles laiddown by Their Lordships, it is clear that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are the only 2 daughters to the deceased and they are the only legal heirs in view of death of their mother. As per the said judgment, the Tribunal is required to give SCCH - 1 11 MVC No.839/2018 finding based on the facts and circumstances of the case as to whether the petitioners are depending on the deceased or not.
(26) Ex.P.9 is the copy of the divorce petition filed by the husband of the petitioner No.1 on the file of Prl.Civil Judge Sr.Dvn., Madanapalli. From going through the averments of the affidavit filed in support of the petition in OP No.168/2015, it can be seen that the marriage was solemnised between the petitioner No.1 and N.Vamshi Krishna on 08.03.2015. It is further averred that nuptials function was postponed for one or the other reason till 20 th March'2015. He has narrated the facts in detail in the petition.
(27) In Page No.2 of the affidavit filed by the husband of the petitioner No.1 in the said petition, it is averred as follows:-
"... The respondent came to my house in the first week of April'2015. The respondent did not allow me to touch her and she was behaving indifferently towards me...... . I was also used to send messages to the respondent in whatsup app in order to develop friendliness with her. The respondent was used to reply very harshly and never tried to adjust with me. The respondent began to say openly that she has no liking towards me and she has resigned from her job against her wish and she has no intention to stay at Madanapalle and lead a married life with with me..... But she has never co-operated and she went to her parents house before the Aashadamasam had commenced on 22nd June'2015 and thereafter, she has not returned and joined me.."
SCCH - 1 12 MVC No.839/2018
(28) From this pleadings in the divorce petition filed by the husband of
the petitioner No.1, it is clear that from 22.06.2015, the petitioner No.1 did not come to matrimonial home. She was staying with her parents even much prior to the date of accident ie., 17.08.2015. Till that day, there was no consummation of marriage (29) From Ex.P.15 to 17, it is clear that in view of the settlement between petitioner No1 and her husband, the marriage solemnised between them on 08.03.2015 was dissolved by a decree of divorce. Even though the divorce petition was filed on 17.12.2015 after the death of father of petitioner No.1, but from the above referred averments in the petition of the husband of the petitioner No.1, it is clear that there was no compatibility between the petitioner No.1 and her husband. Therefore, only on the ground that the petitioner No.1 had already married, it cannot be said that the petitioner No.1 was not depending on her father.
(30) From the above referred averments in Ex.P.9, it is clear that after the marriage, the petitioner No.1 resigned the job. Therefore, from June'2015, she was entirely depending on her father. In view of the subsequent developments of dissolution of marriage of the petitioner No.1, presence of parents will count a lot in the personal life of the petitioner No.1.
(31) It is not in dispute that at the time of the death of Ramesh Babu, his wife was alive. However, due to shock, she died within a span of 4 months of the SCCH - 1 13 MVC No.839/2018 death of said Ramesh Babu. As on the date of accident, the wife of the deceased Ramesh Babu and his daughter, petitioner No.1, were depending on him.
(32) During the course of cross-examination of PW 1, she has admitted that the second petitioner is married and staying with her husband at Bengaluru and thus, the petitioners proved that the petitioner No.1 was depending on her deceased father.
(33) The learned advocate for the respondent No.3 vehemently argued that at the time of settlement of matrimonial dispute, petitioner No.1 has received Rs.12,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of her past and future maintenance. Therefore, it cannot be said that she is depending on her father (34) In view of the admitted fact that at the time of disposal of the matrimonial case, she has received Rs.12,50,000/- towards her past and future maintenance, that amount cannot be deducted out of the compensation to be awarded in this case. On this point, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in detail has considered which amount is required to be deducted in the compensation amount to be determined by the Tribunal and which amount cannot be deducted. If there is any direct nexus between the amount received by the legal heirs and the death in an accident, such amount is required to be deducted, but not other benefits received by the legal heirs to which they are entitled for even in view of death of deceased other than in an accident (35) In this regard, it is very apt to refer to the principles laid down in SCCH - 1 14 MVC No.839/2018 the following judgments:-
1) 2002 AIR SCW 2920 ( United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Patricia Jean Mahajan and others), wherein it is held as under:-
"(C) Motor Vehicles Act, (59 of 1988), S.168 - Compensation -
Determination - Insurance Claim - Not deductible - Amount received under total security system - Deductible only to extent payment is referable to accidental death".
2) AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 4465 ( Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Shashi Sharma and others), wherein it is held as under:-
"Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.168 - Compensation - Determination - Ex gratia payment by employer to dependents of deceased in motor accident - Is deductible from quantum of compensation fixed by MACT under head 'pay and other allowances' falling under first part of R.5 - However, other benefits extended to dependents including family pension, life insurance, PF, etc - Must remain unaffected cannot be allowed to be deducted.
3) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.242-243 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.976-977 of 2020) (Diary No.47693 of 2018) ( National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Birender and Ors).
(31) From going through the above said judgments, it is clear that the Hon'ble Apex Court has bifurcated as to which amount is deductible and which amount is not deductible. In the decision reported in 2002 AIR SCW 2920 and AIR 2002 SC 2607, the Tribunal had deducted the amount received by the legal heirs of the deceased on account of social security.
SCCH - 1 15 MVC No.839/2018 (32) In that reported case, one Dr.Suresh K.Mahajan, aged about 47-48 years, a medical graduate, went to America and established himself in the medical profession and became an American national. He established his own hospital at Michigan, USA. He was on visit to India and on 3 rd February'1995, while proceeding from Jaipur to Delhi in a Maruti Car, met with an accident, in view of dash of truck to the Car and he succumbed to the injuries. The MACT awarded compensation of Rs.7,21,476 US Dollars, out of which, deduction on account of benefits to social security system/LIC was deducted, which included an amount of 2,50,000 US Dollars received by the claimants on account of Personal Life Insurance of Dr.Mahajan and social security amount paid to two children of Dr.Mahajan on account of social security was 51,300 US Dollars was also deducted.
(33) On appeal to the High Court, deductions given by Claims Tribunal was reversed, apart from modification of determined compensation in terms of application of multiplier. Even though the Apex Court has upheld the decision of the High Court that the Tribunal has committed error in deducting the LIC amount received by the claimants and the amount received by the children under social security scheme, but Their Lordships have discussed and laiddown principles as to which amount is required to be deducted and which amount is not deductible in the determined compensation under the MV Act. In paragraph No.35 of the said Judgment, Their Lordships recited the observation made in the Apex Court judgment in the case of Helen C.Rebello Vs Maharastra State Road SCCH - 1 16 MVC No.839/2018 Transport Corporation reported in AIR 1998 SC 3191. In the said paragraph, Their Lordships have held as under:-
"We are in full agreement with the observation made in the case of Helen Rebello (supra) that principle of balancing between losses and gains, by reason of death, to arrive at an amount of compensation is a general rule, but what is more important is that such receipts by the claimants must have some correlation with the accidental death by reason of which alone claimants have received the amounts. (34) From going through the judgment in Helen C.Rebello Vs Maharastra State Road Transport Corporation, in Paragraph No.33 to 36, Their Lordships have discussed and held that "any amount received or receivable not only on account of accidental death, but that would come to claimant even otherwise cannot be construed to be a pecuniary advantage, liable for deduction.
However, where the employer insures his employee as against injury or death arising out of an accident, any amount received out of such insurance on the happening of such incident, may be an amount liable for deduction." For better appreciation, reproduction of relevant portion of paragraph No.33, 34 and 35 is necessary, which reads thus:
"33. So far as the general principle of estimating damages under the common law is concerned, it is settled that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on one hand, the loss to the claimant of the future pecuniary benefits that would have accrued to him but for the death with the 'pecuniary advantage' which from whatever source SCCH - 1 17 MVC No.839/2018 comes to him by reason of the death. In other words, it is the balancing of loss and gain of the claimant occasioned by the death. But this has to change its colour to the extent a statute intends to do. Thus, this has to be interpreted in the light of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is very clear, to which there could be no doubt that this Act delivers compensation to the claimant only on account of accidental injury or death, not on account of any other death.......
34. Thus, it would not include that which claimant received on account of other form of deaths, which he would have received even apart from accidental death. Thus, such pecuniary advantage would have no correlation to the accidental death for which compensation is computed. Any amount received or receivable not only on account of the accidental death but that would have come to the claimant even otherwise, could not be construed to be the 'pecuniary advantage', liable for deduction. However, where the employer insures his employee, as against injury or death arising out of an accident, any amount received out of such insurance on happening of such incidence may be an amount liable for deduction......
35. This is based on the principle that the claimant for the happening of the same incidence may not gain twice from two sources. This, it is excluded thus, either through the wisdom of legislature or through the principle of loss and gain through deduction not to give gain to the claimant twice arising from the same transaction viz., same accident. It is significant to record here in both the sources viz., either under the Motor Vehicles Act or from the employer, the compensation receivable by the claimant is either statutory or through the security of the employer securing for his employee, but in both the cases, he SCCH - 1 18 MVC No.839/2018 received the amount without his contribution. How thus an amount earned out of one's labour or contribution towards one's wealth, savings, etc., either for himself or for his family, which such person knows, under the law, has to go to his heirs after his death either by succession or under a will could be said to be the 'pecuniary gain' only on account of one's accidental death. This of course, is a pecuniary gain but how this is equitable or could be balanced out of the amount to be received as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no correlation between the two amounts. Not even remotely. How can an amount of loss and gain of one contract could be made applicable to the loss and gain of another contract. Similarly, how an amount receivable under a statute has any correlation with an amount earned by an individual. Principle of loss and gain has to be on the same place within the same sphere, of course, subject to the contract to the contrary or any provisions of law."
(35) From going through the said principles laiddown by Their Lordships, which are confirmed in the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above, it is clear that the question required to be considered to decide whether the amount, which the petitioner No.1 has already received, is deductible or not, we are required to consider whether there is any correlation between the amount received and the accidental death. If there is no correlation between the amount received by the claimants and the death, then such amount is required to be deducted, if the legal heirs or claimants are entitled for that amount. Even though the death was not caused due to the accident and death was caused by other reasons, such amount is a pecuniary advantage and deduction cannot be SCCH - 1 19 MVC No.839/2018 made such amounts like service benefits to the deceased, if by paying premium, the deceased has secured his life, such amounts are pecuniary advantages, that cannot be deducted in the compensation. To decide whether there is any correlation between the amount received by the claimants and the accidental death, we are required to consider whether the particular amount was a gain or claimants are entitled for particular amount, only on the ground that the deceased died in a road accident. If the amount is disbursed or they are entitled for that amount, in view of death in the road accident, then such amount is required to be deducted in the determined compensation.
(36) In view of my above said observation, the petitioners are entitled for compensation even on the head of loss of dependency.
(37) In this case, it is the case of the petitioners that deceased Ramesh Babu was working as Superintendent in Junior Civil Judge's Court, Madanapalle and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.77,759/-.
(38) To prove the avocation and income of the deceased Ramesh Babu, the petitioners have relied on the evidence of PW 2, who is working as Superintendent in Prl.Jr.Civil Judge Court, Madanapalle. He has produced the Salary Certificate of Ramesh Babu as per Ex.P.10 to 12.
(39) When the case was posted for judgment, the advocate for the petitioner has filed an application to recall PW 2 as the Salary Certificate produced by PW 1 as per Ex.P.6 and the Salary Certificate produced by PW 2 as per Ex.P.11 were SCCH - 1 20 MVC No.839/2018 not tallying with each other. Ex.P.6 and P.11 are the Salary Certificates of C.Ramesh Babu. In the month of July'2015, as per Ex.P.6, the gross salary of Ramesh Babu was Rs.77,759/-. But, as per Ex.P.11, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.65,710/-. To clarify the same, PW 2 was recalled. In his further evidence, PW 2 has deposed that pay scale to the staff of the court was revised in the year 2015 w.e.f. 01.07.2013. Ex.P11 is the Salary Certificate issued prior to the revised payscale and Ex.P.6 is the Salary Certificate issued after revision of payscale and he has produced the pay fixation of arrears in the revised payscale.
(40) From going through the said documents, it is clear that the gross salary of Ramesh Babu was Rs.77,759/- as per the revised payscale.
(41) As per the principles laiddown by Their Lordships in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) (National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and others), at the time of calculation of loss of dependency, the gross salary is required to be taken into consideration after deducting the income tax. Therefore, the gross income of the deceased is taken as Rs.77,759/- per month. Annual income comes to Rs.9,33,108/-. Out of the said annual income, applicable income tax is required to be deducted.
(42) In the year 2015, there was no tax for the income upto Rs.2,50,000/-. (43) For the income between Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/-, 10% (ie. Rs.25,000/-) tax was applicable, for the income between Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.7,50,000/-, 20% (ie., Rs,50,000/-) tax was applicable and for the income SCCH - 1 21 MVC No.839/2018 between Rs.7,50,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-, 30% (ie., Rs.54,932/-) tax was applicable. At the above rate, the total tax deductible comes to is Rs.1,32,332/-, which includes Rs.2,400/- towards Professional Tax. Thus, after deducting tax component of Rs.1,32,332/- from the gross income of Rs.9,33,108/-, the net income of the deceased comes to Rs.8,00,776/-.
(44) PW 2 in his evidence has deposed that the deceased was aged 57 years, which is supported by the the date of birth mentioned in Ex.P.13 PAN Card of the deceased as 05.01.1958. Having regard to the same, as per the principles laid down by their Lordships in 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation), the multiplier applicable to the present case is 9. Since the deceased was aged 57 years, question of considering loss of future prospects does not arise.
(45) Since at the time of his death, the deceased had two dependent members on his income ie., wife and the petitioner No.1, therefore, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased ie., Rs.2,66,925/- is required to be deducted from the net income towards the personal expenses and if that be so, the balance 2/3rd comes to Rs.5,33,850/- which is required to be multiplied by 9 multiplier and the same comes to Rs.48,04,650/-. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.48,04,650/- under the head loss of dependency.
(46) Under the conventional heads, as per the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case referred supra, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.15,000/-
SCCH - 1 22 MVC No.839/2018 towards head funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards head loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- each to petitioner No.1 and 2 and under the head of loss of parental consortium.
(47) Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for compensation as under:-
Sl. Head of Compensation Calculation Total
No.
1 Monthly Income 77,759.00
2 Annual income 77,759.00 X 12 =
9,33,108.00
3 Less : Income Tax & 1,32,332.00
Professional Tax 8,00,776.00
4 Deduction of 1/3rd of 8,00,776.00 (Minus)
income of the deceased
1/3rd 2,66,925.00 =
towards personal expenses
of the deceased 5,33,850.00
5 Total Income after 5,33,850.00 X 9 = 48,04,650.00
application of 9 multiplier
6 Towards Loss of Estate 15,000.00
7 Towards Funeral Expenses 15,000.00
8 Towards Loss of Parental 40,000 X 2 80,000.00
consortium
Total 49,14,650.00
48) The petitioners are entitled to 6% interest on the compensation
amount from the date of petition till realisation.
SCCH - 1 23 MVC No.839/2018
49) As far as liability is concerned, the learned advocate for the
respondent No.3 vehemently argued that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, while the vehicle is a private car and therefore, there is violation of policy conditions by the owner and therefore, the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
50) During the course of cross-examination of PW 1, a suggestion was made to her that the vehicle was hired and the same was denied.
51) On the contrary, RW 1 has deposed that vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial activities and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
52) During the course of cross-examination of RW 1, he has forthrightly admitted that based on the contents of complaint and inquest mahazar, he has stated that Innova Car was being used for commercial purpose.
53) From going through the complaint and charge sheet, it is clear that on the date of accident, the deceased along with other court staff was proceeding to attend a house warming ceremony of a judicial officer and in the complaint itself, it is mentioned that the Innova car was owned by a friend by name Munirathna was taken and they have hired the Dinesh Kumar, the driver to drive the vehicle. From the above said averments, it is clear that to attend the house warming ceremony of their superior judicial officer, the staff have decided to go in a vehicle by using the vehicle of their friend. Therefore, it cannot be said that SCCH - 1 24 MVC No.839/2018 for the commercial purpose, the vehicle was used.
54) From the complaint and charge sheet, it is clear that there were no persons other than the court staff, who were travelling in the Innova Car at the time of the accident. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is not acceptable one.
55) During the pendency of the petition, the Insured - Respondent No.2 died. His Legal heirs were brought on record as respondent no.2(a) to 2(c). The liabiliyt of the respondent No.2(a) to 2(c) is limited to the asset inherited by them from the respondent No.2. They are not personally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The respondent No.1 being the owner and the respondent No.3 being the Insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and the liability of the respondent No.2(a) to 2(c) is limited to the extent of asset which they have inherited from the respondent No.2. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
56) Issue No.3 :- In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.49,14,650/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till SCCH - 1 25 MVC No.839/2018 realization.
The respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.3 being the insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. The liability of the respondent No.2(a) to 2(c) is limited to the extent of asset to which they have inherited from the deceased respondent No.2. The respondent No.3 is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
The amount of compensation is apportioned amongst the petitioner No.1 and 2 at the ratio of 75%:25%.
Out of the compensation amount apportioned in favour of petitioners, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be kept in FD in their respective names for a period of 5 years in any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice. Remaining 50% compensation amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the respective petitioners and interest on the FD is payable on maturity.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transaction thereof corrected, revised, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 8th day of October'2021) (PRABHAVATI M.HIREMATH) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore SCCH - 1 26 MVC No.839/2018 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Sindhu Chepuri
P.W.2 : V.Venkatarama Raju
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : FIR
Ex.P-2 : Complaint
Ex.P.2(a): Translation of Ex.P.2
Ex.P.3 : Inquest Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a): Translation of Ex.P.3
Ex.P-4 : PM Certificate
Ex.P-5 : Charge Sheet
Ex.P-6 : Salary Certificate of deceased
Ex.P-7 : Copy of Aadhaar Card
Ex.P.8 : Copy of Election ID Card
Ex.P.9 : Copy of Petition, Objection Statement and
Deposition in OP No.168/2015
Ex.P-10 to 12: Salary Certificates
Ex.P-13: Copy of PAN Card
Ex.P.14: Copy of Aadhaar Card
Ex.P.15: Copy of Order passed by Prl.CJ Senior Division in
HMOP 58/2019
Ex.P.16: Copy of Compromise Petition in OP 58/2019
Ex.P.17: Decree
Ex.P.18: Authorisation Letter
Ex.P.19: Claim for Pay arrears in revised pay scale
Ex.P.20: Salary Certificate
Ex.P.21: Death Certificate of C.Sandhya
SCCH - 1 27 MVC No.839/2018
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
RW 1 : Pradeep D.S.,
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 Policy Copy
(PRABHAVATI M.HIREMATH)
Chief Judge,
Court of Small Causes &
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T.
Bangalore
-