Bangalore District Court
Shantha Chikkanumappa vs Mohammed Akram on 21 March, 2024
KABC020121562019
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT
BENGALURU (S.C.C.H. - 1)
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2024.
PRESENT: Smt. B.V. Renuka, B.Sc., L.L.B..
Chief Judge & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
M.V.C. No.2819/2019
Petitioners : 1. Shantha Chikkaanumappa,
W/o. Late Chikkaanumappa,
Aged about 39 years,
2. Madhusudhana Chikkahanumaiah,
S/o Late Chikkaanumappa,
Aged about 16 years,
Both are residing at:
2/93, Balathottanapalli,
Palayamkotta,
Denkanikottai,
Krishnagiri, T.N.
Since the 2nd petitioner is a minor
represented by his mother-1st petitioner
as natural guardian.
- VS -
Respondents : 1. Mohammed Akram,
S/o Mohammed Hanez,
No.64, 9th Cross, 6th Main,
Pillappa Block, Ganganagar,
R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru - 560 032.
2. The Manager,
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
2 MVC No.2819/2019
R.O: No.18, 5th Floor, Krushi
Bhavan, Hudson Circle,
Bengaluru -560 001.
(Policy No.0725813118P112713473
Validity : 02.01.2019 to 01.01.2020)
(R1 placed Exparte, R2 Represented
by Sri R. Purushothama, Advocate)
******
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest from the respondents No.1 and 2 for the death of Ravi Kumar S/o late Chikkaanumappa @ Chikkahanumaiah, the son of the petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2 in the road traffic accident.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
That on 10.03.2019 at about 7 P.M., when the deceased Ravikumar was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-JR- 1039 and when the motorcycle reached near Ashapuri Temple, Kyasarguppa, Jigani Hobli, at that time the driver of Santro Car bearing Registration No. KA-03-MC-4471 drove the car negligently and took reverse of the car without giving any indication or signal and when the car blocked the road, the other two motor cycles i.e., KA-05-JR-1039 and KA-42-X-7511 which were coming in the opposite 3 MVC No.2819/2019 direction dashed against each other which resulted in the accident. The deceased Ravikumar sustained grievous injuries and was immediately taken to NH Mazumdar Hospital and in spite of better treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries at the hospital. A case was registered in crime No.30/2019 at Bannerghatta Police Station. Hence, this petition for compensation.
3. In response to the notice of the petition, the respondent No.2 appeared through its advocate. The respondent No.1 remained absent and hence, he was placed exparte. The respondent No.2 has filed his written statement.
4. The second respondent in its written statement has denied the entire averments in the petition as false. It is contended that the policy bearing No. 0725813118P112713473 was issued in favour of the 1st respondent in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-03-MC-4471 and policy was in force as on the date of alleged accident and its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The vehicle had been entrusted by the insured to a person who did not possess valid and effective Driving License to drive the same at the time of alleged accident, therefore, this respondent is not liable to indemnify the insured. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurance 4 MVC No.2819/2019 company of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-42-X-7511 are not made as parties to the proceedings.
That the deceased and another vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-42-X-7511 involved in the alleged accident were totally responsible for the accident and both of them did not possess valid and effective Driving License. The deceased was riding the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and hit another two wheeler bearing Registration No. KA-42-X-7511 and died due to his own negligence. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car. The insured has not complied Section 134(c) of the M.V. Act and also the police have not complied Section 158(6) of M.V. Act. Compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and it has no rationale. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal has framed the following Issues:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Sri. RAVIKUMAR succumbed to the injuries sustained in vehicular accident alleged to have occurred on 10.03.2019 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the CAR bearing registration No.KA-03-MC-4471 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?5 MVC No.2819/2019
6. On behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and two witnesses were examined as PWs 2 and 3 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.13. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, 2 witnesses are examined as RWs 1 and 2 and got marked one document as Ex.R.1.
7. Heard the arguments of both sides.
8. My findings on the above issues are as hereunder:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative, awarding compensation of Rs.17,73,200/-from the respondents No.1 and 2
Issue No.3: As per final order For the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: The petitioners in order to prove this issue, are relying upon the evidence of PW.1 who is the mother of the deceased and also relying upon the oral evidence of PWs 2 and 3 who are the Investigating Officers. In support of her evidence, PW.1 has produced Exs.P.1 to P.9, such as FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, IMV report, statement, PM report, Inquest report and chargesheet. PW.1 being the mother of the deceased, in her affidavit evidence has narrated the manner in which her son met with an accident and accident was due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Santro Car bearing Registration 6 MVC No.2819/2019 No.KA-03-MC-4471. The first respondent being the owner of the Santro Car has remained exparte. The second respondent being the insurer of the said car has filed written statement by contending that the Santro Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-MC-4471 was not at all involved in the accident, but two motorcycles which were involved in the alleged accident were totally responsible for the accident and the petitioners by colluding with the police have filed a false complaint against the driver of the car and created documents in order to claim compensation and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car. In order to prove the same, the second respondent is relying upon the evidence of RW.1, who was the driver of the insured car as on the date of accident and also evidence of its official as RW.2. Let us consider the evidence placed by the parties to decide this issue.
10. As per PW.1, on 10.03.2019 at about 7 p.m., when her son deceased Ravikumar @ Ravi was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-JR-1039 by riding it and when the said motorcycle reached near Ashapuri temple, Kyasarguppa, Jigani Hobli, at that time, one Santro Car bearing Registration No.KA-03- MC-4471 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, reversed the car negligently without putting any indication or signal and when the car blocked the road, the other two motorcycles i.e., 7 MVC No.2819/2019 motorcycle of the deceased bearing registration No.KA-05-JR-1039 and another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42-X-7511 which were coming in the opposite direction, dashed against each other and as such, her son succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Whereas, the driver of the Santro car in question i.e., RW.1 has deposed that on 10.03.2019 he was driving Santro Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-MC-4471 from Ashapuri temple, Bannerghatta road, to his house situated at Maruti Seva Nagar, Banaswadi road, Bengaluru and he had parked his car near Ashapuri temple and he took 'U' turn near the temple and came home, but after more than one month, he came to know from the police that 2 two wheelers have collided against each other when he was returning from Ashapuri temple and in view of the request of the police, he produced his car and the police have seized his car in the police station and then they released his car. As per RW.1, when he was returning from Ashapuri temple, he has not touched any two wheeler or any two wheeler has not touched his car and he has not caused any accident. Thus, PW.1 hand RW.1 have given evidence on the point of negligence. However, from the versions of RW.1, the fact that RW.1 was present near Ashapuri temple on the date of accident along with his Santro car is admitted. But, RW.1 has denied the accident said to have been caused due to his negligence through his car.
8 MVC No.2819/2019
11. Even RW.2 who is an official of second respondent has deposed that the alleged accident was occurred on the sole negligence of both the riders of two wheelers and the insured car has not dashed against anyone of the two wheelers and it is evident from the IMV report wherein it is mentioned that the car was not damaged, but as there was head on collision between both the motorcycles, they were damaged. Thus, RW.2 is contending that the insured car was not at all involved in the accident. Admittedly, PW.1 has not seen the accident. Even RW.2 has not seen the accident. But, she has given evidence only on the basis of the police records. Though RW.1 has deposed that he was present near Ashapuri temple as on the date of accident along with his Santro car, but according to him, his car has not touched any two wheeler or any two wheeler has not touched his car. As such, the documentary evidence placed by the petitioners along with the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 who are the Investigating Officers, assumes much importance.
12. FIR and the complaint as per Exs.P.1 and P.2 disclose that on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Manjunath, who is no other the person known to the family of the deceased, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the Santro Car and also the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42-X-7511. In the complaint, the complainant has not stated the registration number 9 MVC No.2819/2019 of the Santro car. Accident occurred on 10.03.2019, but the complaint was lodged on 11.03.2019 i.e., one day after the accident. It is noticed that immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to NH Mazumdar Hospital and in spite of better treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. As such, on the next day of the accident, complaint was lodged by the complainant. Merely because there is delay of one day in lodging the complaint, the claim of the petitioners cannot be doubted when the petitioners have given prime importance for the treatment of the deceased rather than to lodge the complaint by visiting the police station.
13. PW.2 who was the ASI of Bannerghatta Police station as on the date of accident, has deposed that on 11.03.2019 he received the complaint from one Manjunath and he registered a case in Cr.No.30/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC r/w Sec.187 of M.V. Act. He has also deposed about the spot panchanama as per Ex.P.3 and Inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.8 done by him during investigation and handing over the file for further investigation to CPI, who is no other than PW.3. PW.2 has also deposed that during the investigation of the case by PW.3, as per his request, he along with his staff after verifying the CCTV camera footage of Ashapuri Devasthana, Kaggalipura road, he has taken the copies of CCTV camera footages and handed over them 10 MVC No.2819/2019 to the CPI and further CPI deputed PC-995-Hanumantha for searching of the vehicle involved in the accident and the said vehicle was produced before the CPI. PW.2 in his cross-examination has admitted that accident occurred on 10.03.2019, whereas the complaint was lodged on 11.03.2019 and there is one day delay. PW.2 has denied the suggestion that as per the contents of the complaint, there was head on collision between two vehicles. As discussed above, one day delay in lodging the complaint cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the petitioners when the deceased was immediately admitted to NH Mazumdar Hospital, Bengaluru, for treatment of the accidental injuries. Except the denial of the suggestion, nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of PW.2 to disbelieve his evidence.
14. PW.3 said to be another Investigating Officer who has taken over the investigation process from PW.2, has deposed that after taking investigation from ASI and after registration of the case, he has collected CCTV camera footage of 10.03.2019 from Ashapuri temple, situated on Bannerghatta-Kaggalipura main road and in those CCTV camera footages, they have visualized the occurrence of the accident and based on it, the vehicle involved in the accident was identified as vehicle bearing registration No.KA-03- MC-4471 of accused, i.e., Santro car. He has also deposed that in 11 MVC No.2819/2019 the accident, three vehicles were involved and they are Santro car and two motorcycles and along with the chargesheet, he has submitted CCTV camera footages to the criminal court by copying the recordings in CD. Thus, from the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, it is evident that though in the FIR, the registration number of the Santro car was not mentioned, but on the basis of the CCTV footages which was available at the accident spot, registration number of the Santro car was got known and as such, the chargesheet was filed against the driver of the Santro car bearing registration No.KA-03-MC-4471.
15. PW.1 in his cross-examination has denied that the accident has not occurred due to the negligence of the car driver, but it was occurred due to the head on collision between two motorcycles and there was negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motorcycle by carrying two pillion riders and he was a minor at that time. The complaint-Ex.P.2 discloses that on the date of accident, the deceased was riding the motorcycle along with two pillion riders by names Prajwal and Ranjit. Merely because the deceased was riding the motorcycle along with two pillion riders, the negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be inferred since nowhere in the police documents, it is stated that on account of thribble riding in the motorcycle, the deceased lost control over the vehicle and 12 MVC No.2819/2019 caused accident. PW.1 has denied that a false complaint has been lodged against the driver of the car in collusion with the police. Except the denial of the suggestions made to PW.1, nothing worth is elicited from her mouth to disbelieve the documentary evidence produced by her.
16. PW.3 in his cross-examination has deposed that in the FIR, Santro car is mentioned, but its registration number is not mentioned and based on CCTV camera footage, the police have traced the number of the santro car and how the santro car was involved in the accident. As stated above, chargesheet was filed against the driver of the Santro car bearing registration No.KA-03- MC-4471 on the basis of the CCTV camera footage collected by PW.3. But, PW.3 has not produced CCTV footage or its copy before this court. According to PW.3, he has produced CCTV footage before the criminal court and he can procure the copy of the said CCTV footage and produce it before the court. But, PW.3 has not produced the copy of the CCTV camera footage. However, as the claim petition under M.V.Act is a summary proceedings, the fact of negligence has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities brought out in the evidence and strict proof of negligence as required in the criminal trial is not necessary. Therefore, merely because PW.3 has not produced the CCTV 13 MVC No.2819/2019 camera footage or its copy before this court, the claim of the petitioners cannot be doubted when RW.1 who is the driver of the Santro Car himself has deposed about the presence of his Santro Car near the accident spot as on the date and time of the accident.
17. PW.3 in his cross-examination has admitted that there was head on collision between two motorcycles. Even it is the case of the petitioners that in view of RW.1 reversing his car negligently without giving any indication or signal, there was head on collision between two motorcycles which were moving in opposite direction. Therefore, merely because there was head on collision between two motorcycles, the negligence on the part of the riders of the said motorcycles cannot be inferred. PW.3 in his cross-examination has admitted that all the vehicles involved in the accident are sent to RTO for inspection and as per IMV report, the two motorcycles were inspected and the front portion of two motorcycles were damaged and there was no damages to the Santro car in question. In view of these admissions of PW.3, it is necessary to consider the spot mahazar, seizure mahazar and IMV report as per Exs.P.3 to P.5.
18. Ex.P.3 reveals the state of affairs at the accident spot. As per this document, accident took place in front of Ashapuri temple near Kyasarguppa situated on Bannerghatta-Kaggalipura main road and the width of the said road is about 15 ft., and it runs east to 14 MVC No.2819/2019 west and on one side of the said road, there is a foot path measuring 8 ft., to its southern side and both the vehicles were parked on the said foot path after the accident. In Ex.P.3, it is mentioned that the front portion of both the motorcycles were completely damaged. In view of head on collision between both the motorcycles, it can be safely held that the front portion of both the motorcycles were completely damaged. In the seizure mahazar-Ex.P.4, it is mentioned that after tracing out the registration number of the Santro Car on the basis of the CCTV footages, it was seized by the police under Ex.P.4. In IMV report - Ex.P.5, it is mentioned that no damages were caused to the Santro car. Merely because no damages were caused to the Santro car, it cannot be inferred that accident has not taken place due to the negligent act on the part of the driver of the Santro car i.e., RW.1. It is the specific case of the petitioners that as the driver of the Santro car i.e., RW.1 has negligently taken the car in reverse direction without giving any indication or signal, there was head on collision between both the motorcycles. Such being the case, the chances of Santro car not having any damages, cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the Santro car was seized on 01.05.2019 i.e., after the lapse of more than one and half months from the date of accident. By considering this fact also, the chances of the owner of the Santro car getting repaired the damages earlier to its seizure cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the say of RW.2 that as no damages 15 MVC No.2819/2019 were caused to the Santro Car as per the IMV report, the car is not at all involved in the accident, cannot be believed.
19. According to RW.1, he had parked his car near Ashapuri temple on the date of accident and he took 'U' turn near the said temple and came to his house and he came to know about the collision between two motorcycles only when the police informed him to produce his car. That means, as per RW.1, he has taken 'U' turn near the temple, but not in the reverse direction as alleged by the petitioners. RW.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that on 10.03.2019, he was driving the Santro car and when he was returning from the temple, it was around 7 p.m. This date and time stated by RW.1 is the date and time of accident. As such, from the version of RW.1, it is established before the court that he was moving his car near Ashapuri temple on 10.03.2019 at 7 p.m., in order to go to his house. RW.1 has denied that he has taken his car in reverse direction without giving any indication or signal and he was responsible for the accident which took place between two motorcycles. A suggestion was made to RW1 that if he had taken little care and caution while taking reverse by giving indication or signal, he would not have blocked the road and caused the two wheelers dashing against each other. To this suggestion, RW.1 has deposed that he has not taken his car in reverse direction. But, as 16 MVC No.2819/2019 per the FIR and the complaint at Exs.P.1 and P.2, accident took place between two motorcycles only because the driver of the Santro car had taken his car in reverse direction negligently without giving any indication or signal.
20. PW.1 has produced the statement of one Ganesh as per Ex.P.6, who is no other than the rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42-X-7511 which was involved in the accident. In Ex.P.6, the rider of another motorcycle has categorically stated that as the driver of the Santro car negligently moved it in reverse direction without giving any indication or signal, he slowed down his motorcycle and moved on right side and at that time, another motorcycle of the deceased was coming from the side of Bannerghatta and there was head on collision between both the motorcycles, resulting in damages to his motorcycle and also causing injuries to him. In the complaint-Ex.P.2, the complainant has stated that the rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42-X-7511 has ridden his motorcycle with high speed and in rash and negligent manner and came to the extreme right side and has hit the motorcycle of the deceased resulting in accident. But, the Investigating Officer who has filed chargesheet as per Ex.P.9, has dropped the case against the rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42-X-7511 after detailed investigation. 17 MVC No.2819/2019 PW.3 in his cross-examination has deposed that in the chargesheet he has not mentioned the reasons for dropping out the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42-X-7511. He has also deposed that he has clearly mentioned the reasons for filing chargesheet only against the car driver.
21. In Ex.P.9, it is specifically alleged that RW.1 who was the driver of the Santro Car bearing registration No.KA-03-MC-4471 took his car in reverse direction negligently without giving any indication and at the same time the rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42-X-7511 which was moving towards Bannerghatta road from Kaggalipura side, took his motorcycle to the right side, as the car was moving in the reverse direction and at that time, there was head on collision between both the motorcycles. Thus, in the chargesheet, it is specifically stated that in view of the driver of the Santro car taking his car in reverse direction, in order to avoid it, the rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 42-7511 has taken his motorcycle to the right side and at that time, the deceased who was moving on his motorcycle from Bannerghatta towards Kaggalipura, without seeing another motorcycle moving in the opposite direction, has moved his motorcycle which resulted in head on collision between both the motorcycles. Therefore, on the basis of chargesheet, it is evident that accident has occurred solely 18 MVC No.2819/2019 due to the negligent act on the part of the driver of the Santro car i.e., RW.1 in view of he moving his car in reverse direction on Bannerghatta-Kaggalipura road, without giving any signal or indication. Such being the case, the entire evidence placed by the petitioners clearly establish the case of the petitioners rather than the case of the second respondent.
22. The evidence placed on record clearly establish that the deceased who was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 05-JR-1039 was on the left side of Bannerghatta-Kaggalipura road and even the rider of another motorcycle by name Ganesh was on the left side of Kaggalipura-Bannerghatta road and he has taken his motorcycle to the right side only because the driver of the Santro car was moving his car in reverse direction and at that time, there was collision between both the motorcycles. Hence, it can be said that there is no negligence on the part of the riders of both the motorcycles, but the sole negligence is on the part of the driver of the Santro car i.e., RW.1 in causing the accident. PM report and Inquest report as per Exs.P.7 and P.8 disclose that the death of the deceased was due to severe injury to the brain. It was suggested to PW.3 that the deceased was riding the motorcycle without wearing helmet. In the spot mahazar-Ex.P.3, it is mentioned that at the accident spot, broken helmet was found along with pieces of 19 MVC No.2819/2019 damaged motorcycles. Hence, it can be said that the deceased was riding the motorcycle by wearing the helmet.
23. RW.1 has pleaded ignorance about filing of the chargesheet against him by the police. As discussed above, chargesheet-Ex.P.9 clearly establishes that due to the rash and negligent act on the part of RW.1, accident has occurred resulting in the death of the deceased and injury to the rider of another motorcycle. This chargesheet was not challenged by RW.1. If RW.1 had taken care and caution while taking his car in reverse direction by observing the vehicles moving on either side of the road, this accident would have been avoided. But, RW.1 has not done so. The conduct of RW.1 in not challenging the chargesheet itself is sufficient to draw an adverse inference against him that as the accident took place due to his negligence, he has remained silent. When RW.1 has not challenged the chargesheet, RW.2 who is not concerned to the said chargesheet, cannot say that chargesheet filed by the police is a false chargesheet. Even she has deposed that no complaint was given to the higher authorities of the police by stating that the car was not at all involved in the accident. By considering these versions of RW.2 also, it can be said that as the accident took place due to the negligent act on the part of RW.1, RW.2 has not lodged any counter complaint to the higher authorities of the police. Hence, by considering all these aspects, I am of the 20 MVC No.2819/2019 opinion that the petitioners by placing satisfactory evidence, have proved that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of Santro car bearing registration No.KA- 03-MC-4471, which resulted in the death of the deceased. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the 'Affirmative'.
24. Issue No.2:
The petitioners claim that they are the mother and brother of the deceased Ravikumar. In order to prove the relationship, the petitioners have produced their Family card and Aadhar cards as per Exs.P.10 and P.11. These documents disclose that the petitioners are the mother and brother of the deceased and they are the only legal heirs and they are entitled to claim compensation on account of the death of the deceased.
25. PW-1 has deposed that, the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of his death and he was doing loader work and getting monthly income of Rs.20,000/- per month. Except the oral assertion of PW.1, no materials are placed in proof of avocation and income of the deceased. As such, notional income of the deceased has to be taken into consideration as per the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.11,000/- per month.
21 MVC No.2819/2019
26. PW-1 has deposed that, the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of his death. But she has not produced any material in respect of the age of the deceased. However, in the PM report and also in the medical bill, the age of the deceased is shown as 18 years. Hence, the said age has to be considered to decide loss of dependency. Depending upon the said age, as per the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation) the multiplier applicable to the present case is 18.
27. In a case of Pranay Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700(SC)), their Lordships have held as under:
"(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) S.166, S.168 -
Compensation - Future prospects-Determination - (1) Self employed or fix salaried deceased:- Deceased below 40 years, addition of 40%; between 40 to 50 years, addition of 25% and between 50-60 years, addition of 10% of established income to be made. (II) Deceased with permanent job -deceased below 40 years, addition of 50%, between 40 to 50 years addition of 30% and between 50 to 60 years, addition of 15% of actual salary to income of deceased towards future prospects to be made.
As per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision, 40% of the income of the deceased has to be taken to determine the future prospects, as deceased was below 40 years. 40% of the present income of Rs.11,000/- is Rs.4,400/-. If the same is added to his personal income, it comes to Rs.15,400/-p.m. 22 MVC No.2819/2019 It is not in dispute that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident. Therefore, 50% of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Hence, 50% of Rs.15,400/- would be Rs.7,700/-. After deducting the same, the balance comes to Rs.7,700/-p.m., and annually, the income works out to Rs.92,400/-. As I have already discussed above, the multiplier applicable to the present case is 18. If we multiply the annual income of the deceased by the multiplier, the same works out to Rs.16,63,200/-. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.16,63,200/- under the head loss of dependency.
28. PW-1 has deposed that the deceased was her son and brother of the petitioner No.2. Hence, it can be safely held that the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) (National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and others) under the conventional heads, petitioners are awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium to the petitioner No.1.
29. Medical Expenses (conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges) :
23 MVC No.2819/2019
PW.1 has deposed that she has spent huge amount towards purchase of medicines, hospital charges and other incidental expenses. In support of her evidence, PW.1 has produced the Final bill and two receipts as per Exs.P.12 and P.13. Ex.P.12 is the Final bill of NH Mazumdar Medical Center, amounting to Rs.35,374/-. Ex.P.13 are the advance receipts under which the petitioners have paid Rs.25,000/- towards the hospital charges in advance. Ex.P.12 discloses that the petitioners have paid the entire bill amount. Hence, it can be said that the petitioners have spent Rs.35,374/- towards the hospital charges and medicines. The deceased was inpatient in the said hospital for two days and he succumbed to the injuries on 11.03.2019. Hence, it can be said that the petitioners have spent some amount towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. As such, I deem it just and proper to award compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head medical expenses, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges.
30. In view of the above said reasons, I am inclined to award compensation under the following heads:-
Sl. Head of Calculation Amount/Rs
No Compensation Rs.
a. Monthly Income 11,000-00
Future Prospects at 4,400-00
40% --------------
15,400-00
b Deduction of 50% 15,400-00
income of the 7,700-00
24 MVC No.2819/2019
deceased towards 7,700-00
personal expenses
c Annual income of the 7,700x12
deceased 92,400-00
d Compensation after 92,400x18 16,63,200-00
multiplier applied
e Loss of estate 15,000-00
f Funeral expenses 15,000-00
g Loss of filial 40,000 40,000-00
consortium to
petitioner No.1
h Medical expenses 40,000-00
TOTAL Rs. 17,73,200-00
Thus, the petitioners are awarded compensation of
Rs.17,73,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization.
31. So far as the liability is concerned, according to the petitioner, the first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the insurer of the Santro Car bearing registration No.KA-03-MC-4471. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent in its written statement has admitted that the Insurance policy was issued in favour of the first respondent in respect of the Santro Car bearing registration No.KA-03-MC-4471 and the same was in force on the alleged date of accident. Even RW.2 has produced the copy of the Policy at Ex.R.1 which discloses that the policy was valid as on the date of accident. Hence, the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 25 MVC No.2819/2019 compensation of Rs.17,73,200/- to the petitioners with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit in Court. Accordingly, I answer Point No.2 partly in the affirmative.
32. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings on issues No.1 and 2 as above and for the reasons stated therein, I proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.17,73,200/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand and Two Hundred only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit in Court.
The compensation amount is apportioned amongst the petitioners No.1 and 2 in the ratio of 80:20.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2, being the Insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount in Court within 3 months from the date of this order.
After deposit of the compensation amount, 50% with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner No.1 and remaining 50% with proportionate interest is 26 MVC No.2819/2019 ordered to be released to the petitioner No.1 and the entire share of compensation amount in respect of minor petitioner No.2 shall be kept in FD in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank, till he attains the age of majority.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- .
The award shall be drawn accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I,, transcribed by her, revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this 21st day of March, 2024.) (Smt. B.V. Renuka) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner:
P.W.1 : Shantha Chikkaanumappa P.W.2 : Shivashankar P.W.3 : Mohan S.V.
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioner:
Ex.P-1 Certified copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Complaint
Ex.P-3 Certified copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P-4 Certified copy of Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P-5 Certified copy of IMV Report
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of Statement
Ex.P.7 Certified copy of PM Report
27 MVC No.2819/2019
Ex.P.8 Certified copy of Inquest report
Ex.P.9 Certified copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.10 Notarized copy of the Family Card
Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of the Two Aadhaar Cards
Ex.P.12 Final Bill
Ex.P.13 Two receipts
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent:
RW-1 Prakash M. Jain RW-2 M.S. Savitha
List of documents marked on behalf of the respondent:
Ex.R.1 Policy copy
(SMT. B.V. Renuka)
Chief Judge,
Court of Small Causes &
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T.
Bengaluru.