Bangalore District Court
In Mvc 1) Mahadevanna vs ) Jakir Hussain on 11 October, 2017
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF OCTOBER'2017
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C Nos. 6667/2016, 6668/2016, 6669/2016 and 6670/2016
Petitioners in MVC 1) Mahadevanna,
No.6667/2016 S/o.Late Mahadevaiah,
Aged about 58 years,
2) Ningamma @ Lingamma,
W/o.Mahadevanna,
Aged about 52 years,
3) Vinuvardhan P., @ Vinay,
S/o.Late Puttegowda @ Puttu,
Aged about 16 years,
4) Ranjitha P.,
D/o.Late Puttegowda @
Puttu,
Aged about 14 years,
All are residing at Vinayaka Layout,
Halagur, Malavalli Taluk,
Mandya District.
Petitioners No.3 and 4 are minors,
hence represented by their grand
mother and natural guardian 2nd
petitioner.
Petitioners in MVC 1) Durgaiah,
No.6668/2016 S/o.Late Durgiah,
Aged about 60 years,
2) Gowramma,
W/o.Durgiah,
Scch-1 2 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
Aged about 55 years,
3) Asha,
D/o.Late Pradeep,
Aged about 13 years,
4) Siddaraju @ Gunda,
S/o.Late Pradeep,
Aged about 12 years,
All are Residing at Vinayaka
Layout,
Halagur, Malavalli Taluk,
Mandya District.
Petitioners No.3 and 4 are minors,
represented by their grand mother
and natural guardian 2nd petitioner.
Petitioners in MVC 1) Sridharkumar M.V.,
No.6669/2016 S/o.Venkatesh,
Aged about 25 years,
2) Chennagiri @ Aruna,
S/o.Venkatesh,
Aged about 23 years,
3) Hombalamma,
W/o.late Venkataiah @ Kalla
Venkateshgowda,
Aged about 65 years,
All are residing at
Gollarahalli Village, Halagur,
Malavalli Taluk, Mandya
District.
Petitioners in MVC 1) Madaiah,
No.6670/2016 S/o.late Dundaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
2) Rajamma,
W/o.Madaiah,
Scch-1 3 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
Aged about 50 years,
3) Mahadevamma,
W/o.Late Basavaraju @
Basava,
Aged about 30 years,
All are residing at H.Basavapura
Village, Halaguru Hobli,
Malavalli Taluk, Mandya
District, 3rd petitioner previously
residing at Banduru Village,
Malavalli Taluk,
Mandya District.
Petitioners in all the petitions are
represented by Sri G.C.Rajesh,
Advocate.
Respondent: 1) Jakir Hussain,
(Common in all the S/o.Late Subhan Sab, Major,
petitions) R/at No.761, Halaguru,
Malavalli Taluk, Mandya
District.
(R.C.owner of Maxi Cab bearing
Reg.No.KA.05/AA.5859)
2) Chola MS General Insurance
Co., Unit no.4, 9th Floor,
Golden Heights Complex,
59th C Cross, Industrial
Suburb, Rajajinagar,
4th M Block, Bangalore - 10.
(Policy
No.3373/00447729/000/00
Period 23.02.2016 to
22.02.2017)
3) Ajgar Pasha,
S/o.Abdul Sattar, Major,
R/at No.437, T.Narasipura
Scch-1 4 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
Town, Mysore.
(RC Owner of Canter bearing
Reg.No.KL.07/AD.971)
4) Tata AIG General Insurance
Co., Ltd.,
No.69, 3rd Floor, J.P. & Devi
Jambukeshwara Arcade,
Millers Road, Bangalore - 52.
Policy No.015623444800,
Period 25.08.2016 to
24.08.2017.
(Respondent No.1 - Represented by
Sri B.L.Sanjeev, Advocate)
Respondent No.2 - Sri
Y.P.Venkatapathi, Advocate)
Respondent No.3 - Sri Syed Abdul
Saboor, Advocate,
Respondent No.4 - Sri Janardhana
Reddy, Advocate)
COMMON JUDGMENT
All these petitions are arising out of the same accident and
hence, they are clubbed and disposed off by this common judgment.
2. M.V.C.No.6667/2016 is filed by the petitioners claiming
compensation of Rs.40 lakhs for the death of Pavithra, MVC
No.6668/2016 is filed claiming compensation of Rs.40 lakhs for the
death of Smt.Geetha, MVC No.6669/2016 is filed claiming
compensation of Rs.40 lakhss for the death of Smt.Gowramma and
MVC No.6670/2016 is filed claiming compensation of Rs.40 lakhs
for the death of Mahadeva, in the road traffic accident that occurred
Scch-1 5 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
on 07.09.2016 at about 09.15 pm., near Shambegowdanadoddi
Village Gate, NH-209 Road, Sathnoor, Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
3. It is the case of the petitioners in all the cases that on
07.09.2016 at about 09.15 pm., the deceased persons ie., Pavithra,
Geetha, Gowramma and Mahadeva, along with others, were traveling
in Maxicab bearing registration No.KA.05/AA.5859 from Sara Souel
Pvt., Ltd., towards Halagur on NH 209 Road. The said vehicle was
driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger
human life and safety of others. While proceeding so, when the said
vehicle came near Shambegowdanadoddi Village Gate, Sathnoor, at
that time, a canter vehicle bearing registration No.KL.07/AD.971
came from opposite direction, driven by its driver in rash and
negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety of others
and dashed against the Maxicab and there occurred an accident and in
the accident, Pavithra, Geetha, Gowramma died at the spot whereas
Mahadeva died at Apollo Hospital while undergoing treatment.
4. The petitioners in MVC No.6667/2016, being the parents
and children of the deceased, contend that the deceased Pavithra was
aged 35 when the accident occurred and working as Line-5 Helper at
Sara Suole Ltd., Bangalore-83 and getting a monthly income of
Scch-1 6 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
Rs.12,000/- and maintaining the family. The deceased was the sole
caretaker of the family and on account of the untimely death of the
deceased, the petitioners have been put to untold hardship and they
lost the caretaker of the family. Hence, prayed to award
compensation as claimed in the petition.
5. The petitioners in MVC No.6668/2016 contended that the
deceased Geetha was aged 30 years, at the time of the accident and
she was working as Line-1 Helper at Sara Suole Pvt., Ltd., Bangalore-
83 and getting a monthly income of Rs.12,000/- per month and
maintaining the family. The deceased was the sole earner in the
family and on account of the untimely death of the deceased, the
petitioners have been put to untold hardship and lost the bread earner
of the family. Hence, prayed to award compensation as claimed in
the petition.
6. The petitioners in MVC No.6669/2016 contended that the
deceased Gowramma was aged 40 years, at the time of the accident
and she was working as Line-5 Helper at Sara Suole Pvt., Ltd.,
Bangalore-83 and getting a monthly income of Rs.12,000/- per month
and maintaining the family. The deceased was maintaining the family
from her income and on account of the untimely death of the
deceased, the petitioners have been put to untold hardship and lost the
Scch-1 7 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
caretaker of the family. Hence, prayed to award compensation as
claimed in the petition.
7. The petitioners in MVC No.6670/2016 contended that the
deceased Mahadeva was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and
he was working as Line-4 Helper at Sara Suole Pvt., Ltd., Bangalore-
83 and getting a monthly income of Rs.12,000/- per month and
maintaining the family. The deceased was the sole earner in the
family and on account of the untimely death of the deceased, the
petitioners have been put to untold hardship and lost the caretaker of
the family. Hence, prayed to award compensation as claimed in the
petition.
8. It is contention of the petitioners in all the petitions that the
accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both
the vehicles ie., Maxicab and Canter and therefore, the jurisdictional
Police after investigation have filed charge sheet against drivers of
both the vehicles. Hence, the petitioners have prayed to award
compensation as claimed in their respective petitions.
9. Pursuant to filing of the petitions, notice was issued to the
respondents. All the respondents appeared through their respective
Counsel and filed statement of objections separately.
Scch-1 8 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
10. The sum and substance of the statement of objections filed
by the respondent No.1, the owner of the Maxi Cab
No.KA.05/AA.5859, in all the petitions is as under:-
11. Petitions are false, mischievous and mollified. The
averments in column No.1 to 6, 8 to 14 & 16 to 18 of the claim
petition are not within the knowledge of the respondent No.1.
12. The averment that on 07.09.2016 at about 09.15 am., the
deceased persons were traveling in Maxicab bearing
No.KA.05/AA.5859 from Sara Souel Pvt., Ltd., Bangalore towards
Halagur side and the said vehicle was driven by its driver without
observing any traffic rules and regulations and in rash and negligent
manner and endangering human life and when the said vehicle came
near Shambegowdanadoddi Vilalge Gate on NH 209, at that time
Canter vehicle No.KL.07/AD.971 came from opposite direction i.e.,
from Halagur side in rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the Maxicab , are denied as false. It is contended that the driver of the
Maxicab was driving his vehicle in a moderate sped by observing the
traffic rules and it is the driver of the canter vehicle, who drew his
vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Maxicab
and no negligence can be attributed to the driver of the Maxi Cab.
Scch-1 9 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
13. The averments that in the accident, deceased persons had
sustained injuries and succumbed to the same and the petitioners have
incurred huge expenses for their treatment are denied as false.
14. The respondent No.1, being the owner of the Maxi Cab, is
not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners as the driver of
the Canter vehicle has driven without observing any traffic rules and
regulations.
15. The age, avocation and income of the deceased in all the
petitions is denied. The relationship of the petitioners with the
deceased is also denied.
16. The amount of compensation claimed in all the petitions is
highly excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary.
17. As on the date of the accident, the Maxi Cab
No.KA.05/AA.5859 had a valid Insurance Policy with the respondent
No.2 and if there is any liability, the same be fastened on the
respondent No.2.
18. For all these reasons the respondent No.1 has prayed the
Court to reject all the petitions.
19. The second respondent, the insurer of the Maxicab
No.KA.05/AA.5859 has filed statement of objections in all the
petitions, the gist of which is as under:-
Scch-1 10 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
20. Petitions are not maintainable either in law or on facts.
Maxicab No.KA.05/AA.5859 was insured with the respondent No.2,
however, the liability/obligation is subject to terms and conditions of
the policy and further subject to the driver of the vehicle holding a
valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle possessing valid
FC and Permit.
21. The Maxi Cab was originally permitted to carry only 12
passengers with a driver, however, as the said vehicle was carrying 17
passengers at the time of accident, there is violation of policy
conditions.
22. The alleged accident has occurred solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the Maxi Cab and the petitioners have distorted
the facts to claim compensation against the respondent No.1 and 2
and the Police have cooperated with the petitioners by getting the
respondent No.1 also charge sheeted.
23. The averments in column Nos.1 to 6, 8 to 14 A, 18, 19 and
21 are denied as false.
24. The age, avocation and income of the deceased,
dependency of the petitioners on the income of the deceased is also
denied.
Scch-1 11 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
25. The amount of compensation claimed in all the petitions is
highly excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary.
26. For all these reasons the respondent No.2 has prayed the
Court to reject all the petitions.
27. The sum and substance of the statement of objections filed
by the respondent No.3, the owner of the Canter No.KL.07/AD.971,
in all the petitions is as under:-
28. Petitions are not maintainable either in law or on facts. The
averments in column No.3 to 6 and 8 to 14 of the claim petition, with
regard to the age, occupation, name of the employer and monthly
income of the deceased, place, date and time of the accident, cause of
accident are not within the knowledge of the respondent No.3.
29. The third respondent being the owner of the Canter
No.KL.07/AD.971, the same was duly insured with the 4th respondent
and the driver of the said vehicle was driving the same slowly and
cautiously on the left side of the road by observing the traffic and the
accident has occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the
Maxi Cab No.KA.05/AA.5859 and hence, the petition as against the
respondent No.3 deserves to be dismissed.
Scch-1 12 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
30. The respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation
to the petitioners as the driver of the Maxi Cab has driven the same
without observing any traffic rules and regulations.
31. The amount of compensation claimed in all the petitions is
highly excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary.
32. As on the date of the accident, the Canter
No.KL.07/AD.971 had a valid Insurance Policy with the respondent
No.4 and if there is any liability, the same be fastened on the
respondent No.4.
33. For all these reasons the respondent No.3 has prayed the
Court to reject all the petitions.
34. The fourth respondent, the insurer of the Canter
No.KL.07/AD.971 has filed statement of objections in all the
petitions, the gist of which is as under:-
35. Canter No.KL.07/AD.971 was insured with the respondent
No.4, however, the liability/obligation is subject to terms and
conditions of the policy and further subject to the driver of the vehicle
holding a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle
possessing valid FC and Permit.
36. The respondent No.4 has taken the general defence, in
as much as, as provided under Section 134(c) of the MV Act, the
Scch-1 13 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
respondent No.3 has not furnished the particulars of policy, date,
time and place of accident, particulars of the deceased and the
name of the driver and particulars and his driving licence and
thereby violated the provisions of the said Act.
37. As per Section 158(6) of the MV Act, it is the
mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the
relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days, but
the Police having failed to do so, there is violation of the said
Act.
38. The material averments made out in the claim petition
with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred,
injuries sustained and the death of the deceased, period of
treatment, expenditure incurred, the avocation of the deceased,
their income and age have been denied apart from denying the
negligence attributed to the driver of the Canter vehicle. The
amount of compensation claimed is excessive and not based on
any norms in all the petitions. For all these reasons, the
respondent No.4 has prayed for dismissal of all the petitions.
39. The above pleadings gave rise to framing of the following
common issues :-
Scch-1 14 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed
to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on
07.09.2106 at about 09.15 pm., at Shambegowdanadoddi
Village Gate, NH 209 Road, Sathnoor, Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District within the jurisdiction of Sathnoor
Police Station, on account of rash and negligent driving of
the Maxi Cab Car bearing registration No.KA.05/AA.5859
and the Canter bearing registration No.KL.07/AD.971 by its
drivers?
2. Whether the respondent No.1 proves that the accident was
occurred on account of negligent act of the driver of Canter?
3. Whether the respondent No.3 proves that the accident was
occurred on account of negligent act of driver of Maxi Cab?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so
how much and from whom?
5. What order or award?
40. In order to prove their case, the 1st petitioner in MVC
No.6667/2016 to 6670/2016 has been examined as PW 1 to 4
respectively and through their evidence, got marked Ex.P.1 to P.45.
41. On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent is
examined as RW 1 and through his evidence, Ex.R.1 to R.4 are
marked.
42. After closure of evidence, I have heard the arguments of the
petitioners' counsel and also that of the counsel for the respondents.
43. Having heard the arguments of the respective counsel,
based on the pleadings, evidence placed on record, my findings on the
above issues are as under:-
Scch-1 15 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
1) In the affirmative,
2) Partly in the affirmative,
3) Partly in the affirmative,
4) Partly in the affirmative,
5) As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
44. Issue No.1 to 3 in all the cases:- Since all these claim
petitions are arising out of the same accident and issue No.1 to 3 in all
the petitions are regarding the negligence of the driver of the Maxi
Cab and the Canter vehicle, they are taken up together for discussion,
in order to avoid repetition of facts.
45. It is the case of the petitioners that the accident has occurred
on 07.09.2016 at 09.15 pm., near Shambegowdanadoddi Village Gate
on NH 209 and the resultant death of Pavithra, Geetha, Gowramma
and Mahadeva is due to rash and negligent act of the respective driver
of the Maxi Cab No.KA.05/AA.5859 and the Canter
No.KL.07/AD.971, whereas, the respondent No.1 contends that the
accident has occurred due to the negligent driving of the Canter
vehicle and the respondent No.3 contends that the accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maxi Cab by its
driver.
Scch-1 16 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
46. PW 1 to 4 have contended in their respective petitions that
07.09.2016 at 09.15 pm., near Shambegowdanadoddi Village Gate on
NH 209 and the resultant death of Pavithra, Geetha, Gowramma and
Mahadeva is due to rash and negligent act of the respective driver of
the Maxi Cab No.KA.05/AA.5859 and the Canter No.KL.07/AD.971.
47. Apart from their oral evidence, PW 1 to 4 have got marked
the FIR, Mahazar, IMV Report, Sketch and Charge Sheet as Ex.P.1 to
4 and 7.
48. The respondent No.1 who is the owner of the Maxi Cab and
driving the same at the time of the accident has been examined as RW
1, who has attributed negligence to the driver of the Canter vehicle for
the accident. Apart from his oral evidence, RW 1 has got marked
copy of driving licence, Fitness Certificate, Permit and Tax paid
Receipt as Ex.R.1 to R.4.
49. Upon perusal of the evidence of PW 1 to 4, they have clearly
admitted that they have not witnessed the accident and thereby they
are hearsay witnesses as admitted by them. Therefore, the Court has
to examine the police documents as well as the evidence of RW 1 to
arrive at the conclusion regarding the negligence is concerned.
50. On perusal of Ex.P.1 - FIR and Complaint, it can be seen that
the complaint is lodged by one Arun, the son of deceased Gowramma
Scch-1 17 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
in MVC No.6669/2016 at 11 pm., whereas the accident has occurred
on the same day at 09.30 pm. The complaint is lodged making
allegation of rash and negligent driving against the drivers of both
the vehicles. Ex.P.2 is the Spot Mahazar and Ex.P.4 is the Spot
Sketch drawn during the course of investigation. A perusal of these
documents bear out that the accident occurred at the middle of the
road ie., 11 feet from the edge of the road which is of a width of 22
feet. It is apparent that the road is a straight road. Vehicles coming
on either side are easily visible from far distance. There was
sufficient space for both the vehicles to easily pass through the road.
In spite of that, drivers of both the vehicles came to the center of the
road, for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, the admission of
RW 1, the driver of Maxi Cab that it is an head on collusion between
two vehicles and that he has not lodged the complaint immediately
after the accident and that he has not challenged the charge sheet
gains importance for the reason that, if as per the contention of RW 1,
both in his statement of objections and evidence, the driver of the
Canter was solely responsible, then RW 1 would have certainly filed
the complaint against the driver the Canter vehicle or at least he
would have challenged the charge sheet filed against him after
investigation. General principle is that no body would remain silent if
Scch-1 18 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
a false allegation is made against him and in the case on hand, even
after lodging complaint and filing charge sheet against him for
causing the accident, RW 1 kept mum for all these days. The fact that
the driver of the Canter vehicle did not enter witness box is not
conclusive point to attribute negligence solely on him, when the
police papers speak in line with the case of the petitioners.
Therefore, from the perusal of the evidence of PW 1 to 4 coupled
with the police papers, more particularly, the Spot Mahazar and
Sketch, it is apparent that the accident has occurred at the middle of
the road and thereby, the drivers of both the vehicles are equally
responsible for the accident. The respondent No.1 having contended
that the accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent
driving of the Canter Vehicle and the respondent No.2 having
contended that the accident has occurred solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the Maxi Cab by its driver, have utterly failed to
prove the same by placing on record cogent and acceptable evidence
and thereby, the petitioners have proved the issue No.1 and
accordingly, I answer issue No.1 in all the cases in the affirmative and
issue No.2 and 3 partly in the affirmative.
51. Issue No.4 in MVC No.6667/2016 :- The petitioners claim
that they are the father, mother and children of the deceased Pavithra
Scch-1 19 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
and Pavithra died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the
accident. To substantiate the same, the petitioner No.1 got himself
examined as PW 1 and while reiterating the said fact, he has got
marked Inquest Mahazar and PM Report, which are marked as Ex.P.5
and P.6. Perusal of those documents, more particularly Ex.P.6 - PM
Report shows that "Cause of Death of this person is due to head
injury leading to extradural haemorrhage and failure of vital
organs". This document remained unchallenged by the respondents.
Hence, by the oral evidence and production of Ex.P.5 and P.6, the
petitioners have proved that the death of Pavithra is due to accidental
injuries.
52. The petitioners claim that they are respectively the parents
and the children of the deceased Pavithra and to prove the said
relationship, they have produced and got marked Ex.P.16 - Ration
Card and a perusal of the same reveals that the said Ration Card is
issued in the name of the deceased Pavithra in which Petitioner No.3
and 4 are shown to be her son and daughter. Though the names of
petitioner No.1 and 2 are not shown in the said ration card, but it
appears that she is a widow, she may be residing along with her
parents. It is elicited from PW 1 in his cross-examination that
Scch-1 20 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
deceased Pavithra is his daughter. Hence, for the purpose of this case,
it can be said that the petitioners are the Lrs., of deceased Pavithra.
53. Now coming to the point of compensation to be awarded. In
a case of death, in order to arrive at the just compensation to be
awarded to the petitioners, the age, avocation, income and the number
of dependants on the income of the deceased, play vital role.
54. In this regard, the petitioners contend that at the time of the
accident, the deceased Pavithra was aged 35 years and working as
Line-5 Helper at Sara Suole Pvt., Limited, Bangalore-83 and getting a
monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- and she being a widow, was
maintaining the family consisting of the petitioners. This fact has
been reiterated by PW1 in his evidence. However, in his cross-
examination, he admits that he has not produced any document to
show that his daughter was getting salary of Rs.12,000/- per month.
The petitioners except producing Ex.P.17 Employer ID Card of the
deceased issued by Sara Suole Pvt., Ltd., wherein the deceased is
shown to be Employee No.740 and Designation as Line 5, have failed
to produce any other document, such as salary certificate, bank
statement, nor examined her employer. Under such circumstances,
the Court has to do guess work not only to assess the age of the
deceased, but also the income of the deceased. In this regard, if the
Scch-1 21 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
Inquest Report at Ex.P.5 is perused, the age of the deceased is shown
as 35 years. Likewise, PM Report Ex.P.6 conducted on the body of
the deceased is perused, it shows the age of the deceased as 35 years.
However, contrary to the same, if Ex.P.15 - copy of the Aadhaar
Card of the deceased is perused, her date of birth is shown as
01.01.1986, meaning thereby she was running 32 years at the time of
the accident. Ex.P.15 - Aadhaar Card being a public document, the
contents of which can be taken in to consideration. Thus, the age of
the deceased at the time of the accident is taken as 32 years.
55. Now, coming to the avocation and income of the deceased is
concerned, as discussed above, even though the petitioners claim that
the deceased was working as Line 5 Helper at Sara Suole Pvt., Ltd.,
and getting a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-, but as discussed above,
there is no supporting evidence except the Identity Card. As
discussed above, the age of the deceased being 32 years and since she
being a widow having two children to maintain, along with her
parents, for their maintenance, it can be said that she must be doing
some work and thus considering the same and thus considering the
same, if I take the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month, it
would meet the ends of justice.
Scch-1 22 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
56. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment reported
in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held
that even if a person is self employed, loss of future prospects has to
be taken into consideration and hence, as the deceased was aged 32
years at the time of accident, 50% from out of her income, has to be
taken as loss of future prospects, which works out to Rs.4,000/- and
thus the total works out to Rs.12,000/-.
57. As discussed above, the petitioner No.1 is the father, petitioner
No.2 is the mother and the petitioner No.3 and 4 are the children of
the deceased, Since the deceased was a widow, it appears that she
along her children were residing along with her parents ie petitioner
No.1 and 2. Therefore, it can be said that the deceased was having a
family consisting of 5 members including herself. Therefore, 1/4th
out of her total income has to be given deduction towards the
maintenance of the deceased, had she been alive. If that be so, the
remaining amount comes to Rs.9,000/- and annually, it comes to
Rs.1,08,000/-. Having regard to the age of the deceased as 32 years,
the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 16. The loss of
dependency has to be multiplied by 16 multiplier, having regard to
the age of the deceased as 32 years and therefore, the total loss of
dependency works out to Rs.17,28,000.00.
Scch-1 23 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
58. Apart from that, the petitioners are also held to be entitled to
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, since they are the parents and children
of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings,
deprivation of protection. The petitioners are also entitled to
compensation of Rs. Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and ritual expenses, post mortem and
mortuary charges. Though the petitioners claimed medical expenses,
but the said contention of the petitioners is not supported by any
documentary evidence and hence, the said prayer is rejected.
59. Thus, the petitioners in MVC No.6667/2016 are held to be
entitled to Rs.18,78,000/- as compensation for the death of Pavithra in
the above accident.
60. As discussed above, the petitioners are the parents and the
children of the deceased and hence, the compensation amount is
apportioned in the following manner:
1) Petitioner No.1 - Father - 10%
2) Petitioner No.2 - Mother - 10%
3) Petitioner No.3 - Son - 40%
4) Petitioner No.4 - Daughter 40%
Accordingly, I answer issue No.4 partly in the affirmative.
61. Issue No.4 in MVC No.6668/2016 :- The petitioners claim
that they are the father, mother and children of the deceased Geetha,
who died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident.
Scch-1 24 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
To substantiate the same, the petitioner No.1 got himself examined as
PW 1 and while reiterating the said fact, he has got marked Inquest
Mahazar and PM Report, which are marked as Ex.P.18 and P.19.
Perusal of those documents, more particularly Ex.P.6 - PM Report
shows that "Cause of Death of this person is due to hypovolume shock
following blood loss due to injuries". This document remained
unchallenged by the respondents. Hence, by the oral evidence and
production of Ex.P.18 and 19, the petitioners have proved that the
death of Geetha is due to accidental injuries.
62. The petitioners claim that they are respectively the parents
and the children of the deceased Geetha and to prove the said
relationship, they have produced and got marked Ex.P.25-
Acknowledgement for having filed application to obtain Ration Card
and a perusal of the same reveals the inter se relationship between the
petitioners and the deceased and further Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.28 are the
Study Certificate wherein the name of the husband of the deceased
Geetha is shown to be their father. It is elicited from PW 1 in his
cross-examination that his daughter was already married and her
husband was no more and hence, she was staying along with them
and that his daughter is having a daughter and a son. Hence, for the
Scch-1 25 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
purpose of this case, it can be said that the petitioners are the Lrs., of
deceased Geetha.
63. Now coming to the point of compensation to be awarded in
this case. In a case of death, in order to arrive at the just
compensation to be awarded to the petitioners, the age, avocation,
income and the number of dependants on the income of the deceased,
play vital role.
64. In this regard, the petitioners contend that at the time of the
accident, the deceased Geetha was aged 30 years and working as
Line-1 Helper at Sara Suole Pvt., Limited, Bangalore-83 and getting a
monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- and she being a widow, was
maintaining the family consisting of the petitioners. This fact has
been reiterated by PW1 in his evidence. In his cross-examination, it
is elicited from him that deceased Geetha is his daughter and she was
working in the factory at Bangalore. He admits that he has not
produced any document to show that his daughter was getting salary
of Rs.12,000/- per month. He says that he has produced Employer ID
Card of his daughter which is marked as Ex.P.26. It is suggested to
him that his daughter was aged more than 40 years at the time of the
accident and the same has been denied by him. The petitioners except
producing Ex.P.26 Employer ID Card of the deceased issued by Sara
Scch-1 26 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
Suole Pvt., Ltd., wherein the deceased is shown to be Employee
No.635 and Designation as Line 1, have failed to produce any other
document, such as salary certificate, bank statement, nor examined
her employer. Under such circumstances, the Court has to do guess
work not only to assess the age of the deceased, but also the income
of the deceased. In this regard, if the Inquest Report at Ex.P.18 is
perused, the age of the deceased is shown as 30 years. Likewise, PM
Report Ex.P.19 conducted on the body of the deceased is perused, it
shows the age of the deceased as 30 years. However, if Ex.P.23 the
Aadhaar Card of the petitioner No.3 Siddaraju is perused, his date of
birth is shown as 10.10.2004. That means, during 2004, the age of
the deceased is just 17 years, which cannot be accepted, since if the
said fact is accepted, then it has to be construed that she was married
at the age of 16 years, which fact cannot be accepted. Therefore, in
all probability, having considered the age of the petitioner No.3 and 4
as on 2004, the deceased must be around 32 or 33 years as on the date
of the accident. Thus, in the absence of any conclusive proof
regarding ht exact age of the deceased, the age of the deceased at the
time of the accident is taken as 33 years.
65. Now, coming to the avocation and income of the deceased
is concerned, as discussed above, even though the petitioners claim
Scch-1 27 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
that the deceased was working as Line 1 Helper at Sara Suole Pvt.,
Ltd., and getting a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-, but as discussed
above, there is no supporting evidence except the Identity Card. As
discussed above, the age of the deceased being 33 years and since she
being a widow having two children to maintain, along with her
parents, for their maintenance, it can be said that she must be doing
some work and thus considering the same and thus considering the
same, if I take the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month, it
would meet the ends of justice.
66. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment reported
in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held
that even if a person is self employed, loss of future prospects has to
be taken into consideration and hence, as the deceased was aged 33
years at the time of accident, 50% from out of her income, has to be
taken as loss of future prospects, which works out to Rs.4,000/- and
thus the total works out to Rs.12,000/-.
67. As discussed above, the petitioner No.1 is the father,
petitioner No.2 is the mother and the petitioner No.3 and 4 are the
children of the deceased, Since the deceased was a widow, it appears
that she along her children were residing along with her parents ie
petitioner No.1 and 2. Therefore, it can be said that the deceased was
Scch-1 28 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
having a family consisting of 5 members including herself.
Therefore, 1/4th out of her total income has to be given deduction
towards the maintenance of the deceased, had she been alive. If that
be so, the remaining amount comes to Rs.9,000/- and annually, it
comes to Rs.1,08,000/-. Having regard to the age of the deceased as
33 years, the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 16. The loss
of dependency has to be multiplied by 16 multiplier, having regard to
the age of the deceased as 35 years and therefore, the total loss of
dependency works out to Rs.17,28,000.00.
68. Apart from that, the petitioners are also held to be entitled to
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, since they are the parents and children
of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings,
deprivation of protection. The petitioners are also entitled to
compensation of Rs. Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and ritual expenses, post mortem and
mortuary charges. Though the petitioners claimed medical expenses,
but the said contention of the petitioners is not supported by any
documentary evidence and hence, the said prayer is rejected.
69. Thus, the petitioners in MVC No.6668/2016 are held to be
entitled to Rs.18,78,000/- as compensation for the death of Geetha in
the above accident.
Scch-1 29 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
70. As discussed above, the petitioners are the parents and the
children of the deceased and hence, the compensation amount is
apportioned in the following manner:
Petitioner No.1 - Father - 10%
Petitioner No.2 - Mother - 10%
Petitioner No.3 - Daughter- 40%
Petitioner No.4 - Son 40%
Accordingly, I answer issue No.4 partly in the affirmative.
71. Issue No.4 in MVC No.6669/2016 :- It is the case of the
petitioners that they are the children and mother in law of the
deceased Gowramma, who died on account of the injuries sustained
by her in the accident. To substantiate the same, the petitioner No.1
got himself examined as PW 1 and while reiterating the said fact, he
has got marked Inquest Mahazar and PM Report, which are marked
as Ex.P.29 and P.30. Perusal of those documents, more particularly
Ex.P.30 - PM Report shows that "Death is due to haemorrhagic
shock as a result of lever injury and associated injuries along with
multiple fractures". This document remained unchallenged by the
respondents. Hence, by the oral evidence and production of Ex.P.29
and 30, the petitioners have proved that the death of Gowramma is
due to accidental injuries.
72. The petitioners claim that they are respectively the children
and mother in law of the deceased Gowramma and to prove the said
Scch-1 30 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
relationship, they have produced and got marked Ex.P.35- Ration
Card and a perusal of the same reveals the inter se relationship
between the petitioners No.1 and 2 and the deceased. It is elicited
from PW 1 in his cross-examination that deceased Gowramma is his
mother and that she was working in the factory at Bangalore. Hence,
for the purpose of this case, it can be said that the petitioners are the
Lrs., of deceased Gowramma.
73. Now coming the point of compensation to be awarded in this
case. In a case of death, in order to arrive at the just compensation to
be awarded to the petitioners, the age, avocation, income and the
number of dependants on the income of the deceased, play vital role.
74. In this regard, the petitioners contend that at the time of the
accident, the deceased Gowramma was aged 40 years and working as
Line-5 Helper at Sara Suole Pvt., Limited, Bangalore-83 and getting a
monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- and she being a widow, was
maintaining the family consisting of the petitioners. This fact has
been reiterated by PW1 in his evidence. In his cross-examination, it
is elicited from him that deceased Gowramma is his mother and she
was working in the factory at Bangalore. He admits that he has not
produced any document to show that his daughter was getting salary
of Rs.12,000/- per month. He says that he has produced aadhaar Card
Scch-1 31 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
of his mother to show her age. It is suggested to him that his mother
was aged more than 46 years at the time of the accident and the same
has been denied by him. The petitioners except producing Ex.P.35
Copy of Ration Card, wherein the age of the deceased during the yer
2012 is shown as 40 years, have failed to produce any other
document, such as salary certificate, bank statement, nor examined
her employer. Under such circumstances, the Court has to do guess
work not only to assess the age of the deceased, but also the income
of the deceased. Even though the age of the deceased is shown in the
Inquest Report at Ex.P.29 and 30 is shown as 40 years, but when the
age shown in the Ration Card is taken in to consideration, then it
works out to 44 years, which may be the probable age of the
deceased, when the age of the petitioner No.1 is taken in to
consideration as 26 years. Thus, in the absence of any conclusive
proof regarding the exact age of the deceased, the age of the deceased
at the time of the accident is taken as 44 years.
75. Now, coming to the avocation and income of the deceased
is concerned, as discussed above, even though the petitioners claim
that the deceased was working as Line 5 Helper at Sara Suole Pvt.,
Ltd., and getting a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-, but as discussed
above, there is no supporting evidence except the oral say of the
Scch-1 32 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
petitioners. As discussed above, the age of the deceased being 44
years and since she being a widow having her mother in law to
maintain, for their maintenance, it can be said that she must be doing
some work and thus considering the same and thus considering the
same, if I take the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month, it
would meet the ends of justice.
76. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment reported
in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held
that even if a person is self employed, loss of future prospects has to
be taken into consideration and hence, as the deceased was aged 44
years at the time of accident, 30% from out of her income, has to be
taken as loss of future prospects, which works out to Rs.2,400/- and
thus the total works out to Rs.10,400/-.
77. As discussed above, the petitioner No.1 and 2 are the sons of
the deceased, who have already attained majority and they can not be
treated as dependant members on the income of the deceased and the
petitioner No.3 is the mother in law of the deceased, who in my
opinion is the only dependant member on the income of the deceased
and therefore, ½ out of her total income has to be given deduction
towards the maintenance of the deceased, had she been alive. If that
be so, the remaining amount comes to Rs.5,200/- and annually, it
Scch-1 33 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
comes to Rs.62,400/-. Having regard to the age of the deceased as 44
years, the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 14. The loss of
dependency has to be multiplied by 14 multiplier, having regard to
the age of the deceased as 44 years and therefore, the total loss of
dependency works out to Rs.8,73,600.00.
78. Apart from that, the petitioners are also held to be entitled to
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, since they are the children and mother
in law of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and
sufferings, deprivation of protection. The petitioners are also entitled
to compensation of Rs. Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and ritual expenses, post mortem and
mortuary charges. Though the petitioners claimed medical expenses,
but the said contention of the petitioners is not supported by any
documentary evidence and hence, the said prayer is rejected.
79. Thus, the petitioners in MVC No.6669/2016 are held to be
entitled to Rs.10,23,600/- as compensation for the death of
Gowramma in the above accident.
80. As discussed above, the petitioners are the children and
mother in law of the deceased and hence, the compensation amount is
apportioned in the following manner:
Petitioner No.1 - Son - Rs.75,000/-
Petitioner No.2 - Son - Rs.75,000/-
Scch-1 34 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
Petitioner No.3 - Mother in law - Rs.8,73,600/-
Accordingly, I answer issue No.4 partly in the affirmative.
81. Issue No.4 in MVC No.6670/2016:- This petition is filed
seeking compensation of Rs.40 lakhs for the death of Mahadeva, aged
23 years in the above accident. The petitioners in MVC
No.6670/2016 are claiming to be the parents and sister of the
deceased. In order to show that Mahadeva died due to the injuries in
the above accident, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.36 - Inquest
Mahazar and Ex.P.37 - Post Mortem Report issued by Government
Hospital, Kanakapura wherein the post mortem was conducted on the
body of the deceased and the opinion recorded therein clearly shows
that the death is due to "Shock and haemorrhage as a result of
injuries to head, chest and other associates fracture injuries". The
petitioners have also produced Ex.P.36 - Inquest Report conducted
on the body of the deceased. The contents of both these documents
are not disputed by the respondents. Both these documents show that
the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the above accident.
82. So far as the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased
is concerned, PW 4, in his evidence says that deceased Mahadeva is
his son. Further, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.44 Ration Card
in which the inter se relationship of the petitioners is shown. In the
Scch-1 35 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
statement of objections though the respondents deny the relationship
of the petitioners with the deceased, but nothing has been brought
about to disbelieve the relationship stated by PW 4 in his evidence.
Hence, for the purpose of this case, it can be said that the petitioners
are the LRs., of the deceased Mahadeva.
83. Now coming to the point of compensation to be awarded in
this case. In a case of death, in order to arrive at the just
compensation to be awarded to the petitioners, the age, avocation,
income and the number of dependants on the income of the deceased,
play vital role.
84. In the case on hand, it is pleaded by the petitioners that
deceased Mahadeva was aged 23 years at the time of his death and
doing Lin3-4 Helper work at Sara Suole Pvt., Ltd., and earning
Rs.12,000/- per month. This fact has been reiterated by PW4 in his
evidence. In his cross-examination, it is elicited from him that
deceased Mahadeva is his son and he was working in the factory at
Bangalore. He admits that he has not produced any document to show
that his son was getting salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. He says that
he has produced Employer ID Card of his son which is marked as
Ex.P.45. It is suggested to him that his son was aged more than 26
years at the time of the accident and the same has been denied by him.
Scch-1 36 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
The petitioners except producing Ex.P.45 Employer ID Card of the
deceased issued by Sara Suole Pvt., Ltd., wherein the deceased is
shown to be Employee No.815 and Designation as Line 4, have failed
to produce any other document, such as salary certificate, bank
statement, nor examined his employer. Under such circumstances,
the Court has to do guess work not only to assess the age of the
deceased, but also the income of the deceased. In this regard, if the
Aadhaar Card of the deceased produced and marked as Ex.P.43 is
perused, the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 04.01.1993 that
means, as on the date of accident, the deceased was running 24 years.
Thus, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident is taken as 24
years.
85. Now, coming to the avocation and income of the deceased
is concerned, as discussed above, even though the petitioners claim
that the deceased was working as Line 4 Helper at Sara Suole Pvt.,
Ltd., and getting a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-, but as discussed
above, there is no supporting evidence except the Identity Card. As
discussed above, the age of the deceased being 24 years, it can be said
that he must be doing some work and thus considering the same, if I
take the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month, it would
meet the ends of justice.
Scch-1 37 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
86. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment reported
in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held
that even if a person is self employed, loss of future prospects has to
be taken into consideration and hence, as the deceased was aged 24
years at the time of accident, 50% from out of her income, has to be
taken as loss of future prospects, which works out to Rs.4,000/- and
thus the total works out to Rs.12,000/-.
87. As discussed above, the petitioner No.1 is the father,
petitioner No.2 is the mother and the petitioner No.3 is the widowed
sister of the deceased, which fact has been elicited from PW 4 in his
cross-examination. Further, it is clear that the deceased is a bachelor.
Therefore, ½ out of his total income has to be given deduction
towards the maintenance of the deceased, had he been alive. If that
be so, the remaining amount comes to Rs.6,000/- and annually, it
comes to Rs.72,000/-. Having regard to the age of the deceased as 24
years, the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 18. The loss of
dependency has to be multiplied by 18 multiplier, having regard to
the age of the deceased as 24 years and therefore, the total loss of
dependency works out to Rs.12,96,000.00.
88. Apart from that, the petitioners are also held to be entitled to
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, since they are the parents of the
Scch-1 38 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings,
deprivation of protection. The petitioners are also entitled to
compensation of Rs. Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and ritual expenses, post mortem and
mortuary charges. Though the petitioners claimed medical expenses,
but the said contention of the petitioners is not supported by any
documentary evidence and hence, the said prayer is rejected.
89. Thus, the petitioners in MVC No.6670/2016 are held to be
entitled to Rs.14,46,000/- as compensation for the death of Mahadeva
in the above accident.
90. As discussed above, the petitioners are the parents and the
widowed sister of the deceased and hence, the compensation amount
is apportioned in the following manner:
Petitioner No.1 - Father - 30%
Petitioner No.2 - Mother - 40%
Petitioner No.3 - Sister- 30%
Accordingly, I answer issue No.4 partly in the affirmative.
91. In a case reported in (2011) 4 SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100)
(Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar
Tragedy), the Supreme Court has held that the Court has to take into
account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the present
day cost of living and thereby awarded, interest on the compensation
Scch-1 39 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
amount at 9% p.a. I have no reasons to deviate from the said view of
the Apex Court. Accordingly, interest on compensation amount is
awarded at 9% p.a.
92. So far as liability is concerned, while answering issue No.1 to
3, it is held that the accident has occurred on account of rash and
negligent driving of the Maxi Cab and Canter vehicles by its
respective drivers and they are equally responsible for the accident
and therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 as owner and insurer of
Maxi Cab and the respondent No.3 and 4 as owner and insurer of
Canter, are jointly and severally liable in equal proportion to pay the
compensation amount to the petitioners.
93. Issue No.5 in all the cases:- In the result, I pass the
following:-
ORDER
MVC No.6667/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.18,78000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount within 2 months from the date of this order. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount, in Scch-1 40 MVC-6667 to 6670/16 equal proportion, is fixed on the respondent No. 2 and 4, the respective Insurance Companies.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 - Father - 10%
Petitioner No.2 - Mother - 10%
Petitioner No.3 - Son - 40%
Petitioner No.4- - Daughter - 40%
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 2, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in their respective names in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to them. Interest on FD is payable on maturity.
Entire compensation amount, with interest, so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.3 and 4 who are minors, is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in their respective names in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of the choice of petitioner No.2 until they attain majority or 5 years, whichever is later. The petitioner No.2 is entitled to receive periodical interest on the deposit, for the maintenance of the minor petitioners. MVC No.6668/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.18,78,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount within 2 months from the date of this order. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount, in Scch-1 41 MVC-6667 to 6670/16 equal proportion, is fixed on the respondent No. 2 and 4, the respective Insurance Companies.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 - Father - 10%
Petitioner No.2 - Mother - 10%
Petitioner No.3 - Daughter - 40%
Petitioner No.4- - Son - 40%
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 2, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in their respective names in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to them. Interest on FD is payable on maturity.
Entire compensation amount, with interest, so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.3 and 4 who are minors, is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in their respective names in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of the choice of petitioner No.2 until the attain majority. The petitioner No.2 is entitled to receive periodical interest on the deposit, for the maintenance of the minor petitioners.
MVC No.6669/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,23,600/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount within 2 months from the date of this order. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount, in Scch-1 42 MVC-6667 to 6670/16 equal proportion, is fixed on the respondent No. 2 and 4, the respective Insurance Companies.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 - Son - 75,000/-
Petitioner No.2 - Son - 75,000/-
Petitioner No.3 - Mother in law - 8,73,600.00
Entire compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 to 3 with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to them.
MVC No.6670/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,46,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount within 2 months from the date of this order. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount, in equal proportion, is fixed on the respondent No. 2 and 4, the respective Insurance Companies.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 - Father - 30%
Petitioner No.2 - Mother - 40%
Petitioner No.3 - Sister - 30%
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 2, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in their respective names in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to them. Interest on FD is payable on maturity.
Scch-1 43 MVC-6667 to 6670/16Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.3, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in her name in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to her. Interest on FD is payable on maturity.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case. Draw decree accordingly.
Original of the judgment shall be kept in MVC No.6667/20166 and a copy of the same be retained in the remaining cases.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on Computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in Open Court on 11.10.2017) (H.P.SANDESH) MEMBER, PRL.MACT ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Mahadevamma P.W.2 : Durgaiah P.W.3 : Sridhar Kumar M.V., P.W.4 :Madaiah Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
R.W.1 : Jakeer Hussain Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : FIR
Ex.P.2 : Mahazar
Ex.P-3 : IMV Report
Ex.P-4 : Sketch
Ex.P-5 : Inquest
Ex.P-6 : PM Report
Ex.P.7 : Charge Sheet
Scch-1 44 MVC-6667 to 6670/16
Ex.P-8&9 : Study Certificate
Ex.P-10: Death Certificate
Ex.P-11: Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card
Ex.P-12: Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card
Ex.P-13&14: Notarised copy of Aadhaar Cards Ex.P-15: Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P-16: Notarised copy of Ration Card Ex.P-17: Employer ID Card Ex.P.18: Inquest Report Ex.P.19: PM Report Ex.P.20: Death Certificate Ex.P.21: Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P.22to24: Notarised copies of Aadhaar Card Ex.P.25: Online Copy of Ration Card Ex.P.26: Employer ID Card Ex.P.27&28: Study Certificates Ex.P.29: Inquest Ex.P.30: PM Report Ex.P.31: Death Certificate Ex.P.32: Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P.33&34: Notarised copy of Aadhaar Cards Ex.P.35: Notarised copy of Ration Card Ex.P.36: Inquest Report Ex.P.37: PM Report Ex.P.38: Death Certificate Ex.P.39: Death Certificate Ex.P.40: Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P.41&42: Notarised copies of Aadhaar Cards E.x.P.43: Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P.44: Notarised copy of Ration Card Ex.P.45: Employer ID Card Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R-1 : Copy of Driving Licence
Ex.R.2 : Fitness Certificate
Ex.R-3 : Permit
Ex.R-4 : Tax Paid Receipt
(H.P.SANDESH)
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore