Bangalore District Court
Sri.T.Nagamurthi vs In 1. Sri.N.Vivek Shetty on 18 March, 2017
BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH.13)
DATE: THE 18th DAY OF MARCH 2017.
PRESENT :
SMT.PANCHAKSHARI M., M.Com., LL.B.
II Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
M.V.C. 642 AND 774 OF 2015
PETITIONERS: 1. Sri.T.Nagamurthi, 53 years,
MVC.642/2015 S/o Thipperudrappa,
2. Smt.Eramma @ Veeramma,
W/o T.Nagamurthi,
Aged about 48 years
3. N.Aswini, 17 Years,
D/o T.Nagamurthi,
All are residing at
Thenginagowra Samudra village,
Ashok Siddapura Post,
Molakalmuru Taluk,
Chitradurga Dist.,
Karnataka-567 535
Since, 3rd petitioner is minor, rept.
by her father, 1st petitioner as
natural guardian.
(By Smt.K.B.Roopa, Advocate)
SCCH.13 2 MVC.642 & 774/2015
Petitioners in MVC. 1. Sri.A.M.Shekharappa D.,
No.774/2015: S/o Late Mallappa,
Aged about 51 years,
2. Smt.Drakshayanamma,
W/o Shekharappa,
Aged about 46 years
3. Sri.Nandish A.S.,
S/o Shekharappa
Aged about 26 years
Petitioners No.1 and 2 are residing
at Andenahalli village,
Chikkangala Post,
Kadur Taluk,
Chikkamagalur-577 548.
Petitioner No.3 R/at NO.25,
Varadenahalli, Doddaballapur,
Bengaluru Rural-561203.
(By Sri.M.N.Ningaraja, Advocate)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS IN 1. Sri.N.Vivek Shetty, Major
BOTH THE CASES: S/o Vithalarai Arai Shetty,
No.4401, Nariguttu House ,
Sajipamooda Post, Bantwal Taluk,
Mangalore-574 211.
(RC Owner of Audi A42OTDI
Regd.No.KA-19-MD-6262)
2. The Manager,
Bharati Axa Genl.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
Regional office, 1st Floor,
Farns Icon, Survey No.28,
SCCH.13 3 MVC.642 & 774/2015
Doddanekkundi, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru-560 037.
(Insurer of Audi A42OTDI
Regd.No.KA-19-MD-6262)
Policy Issued at branch office:
Ground floor, No.203 & 207,
Inland Avenue, M.G.Road,
Mangalore-575 003.
(Policy No.FPV/I1369289/E2/05/
B1E217 valid from 10.5.2014
to 9.5.2015.
Respondent No.3 in Mr.A.S.Sadashiva, 51 years,
MVC.No.642/2015: S/o A.M.Shekarappa,
Since died, represented by his Lrs.
Mr.A.M.Shekharappa D.,
S/o Late Mallappa,
Residing at Andenahalli village,
Chikkangala Post,
Kadur Taluk,
Chickmagalur Dist.
(Owner of Car bearing No.KA-51-A-
5960)
(By Sri.Praddep H.S. Adv. for R1
Sri.M.K.Ramamurthy, Adv.for R2)
Sri.M.N.Ningaraja, Adv. For R3)
-o0o-
COMMON JUDGMENT
The legal representatives of the deceased-Basavaraju
@ Basavaraj, son of T.Nagamurthi and Sadashiva A.S.,
SCCH.13 4 MVC.642 & 774/2015
son of A.M.Shekarappa, filed the present petitions under
Sec.166 of M.V.Act. 1989, claiming compensation of
Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.35,00,000/- on account of their
death in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioners case in both the
cases are that:-
On 16.01.2015 at about 12.00 noon, deceased
N.Basavaraju @ Basavaraj. Sadashiva and others were
proceeding on Hosur-Bengaluru Elevated flyover on Tata
Indica Car bearing Reg.No.KA 51 A 5960 from electronic
city to Silk Board and when they reached Garvebavi playa
Bus band, the left rear wheel of the car got punctured, so
they parked the car on the right side of the road. When
the owner-Sadashiva started removing the punctured
wheel and N.Basavaraju was standing behind the car and
was giving signals to the passing motor vehicles, at that
time, one Audi Car bearing Reg.No.KA 19 MD 6262 came
in the same direction driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner endangering human life, hit both the
deceased. Due to which, they were sustained grievous
SCCH.13 5 MVC.642 & 774/2015
injuries and they succumbed to the injuries on the way to
the Hospital.
3. Thereafter dead bodies of the deceased were
shifted to St.John's Medical college Hospital, wherein post
mortem was conducted and thereafter dead bodies were
handed over to their relatives. The petitioners in
MVC.No.774/2015 have spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards
transportation of dead bodies, funeral and obsequies
expenses. The Madivala Traffic Police have registered a
case in Cr.No.09/2015 under Sections 279, and 304(A) of
IPC against the driver of the said Audi Car.
4. It is contended in MVC.No.642/2015 that the
deceased prior to the accident was hale and healthy and
working as Car driver under various owners and getting
income of Rs.15,000/- per month. The deceased in
MVC.No.774/2015 was owner of Tempo Traveler No.KA
51 B 2127 and Tata Indica Car bearing Reg.No.KA 51 A
5960 and earning Rs.50,000/- per month. The petitioners
in both the cases are entirely dependant on the income of
the deceased for their livelihood. Due to their untimely
SCCH.13 6 MVC.642 & 774/2015
death, the petitioners are put to great financial hardship
and untold misery and depression. Hence, petitioners
have claimed compensation from the respondents with
costs and interest from the date of filing the petition till
realization. On the above grounds, prayed for allowing
the petition.
5. Having served with the notice, the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 in both the cases have placed their
appearance through counsels and filed written statement
with the following contentions:-
6. The respondent No.1 in his written statement
disputing the cause of accident and contended that the
Tata Indica Car bearing No.KA 51 A 5960 was parked in
right side of the road which leads to Hosuru-Bengaluru
elevated fly over without taking proper measures or not
displaced any due sign board to the riders of the other
vehicles. The alleged road was very busy having heavy
traffic, the deceased had parked the vehicle on the right
side of the road and he was standing on the middle of the
road, thereby due to his sole negligence, the alleged
SCCH.13 7 MVC.642 & 774/2015
accident caused and there is no negligence on the apart of
the driver of respondent No.1. The Car bearing No.KA 19
MD 6262 was insured with 2nd respondent and the policy
was in force as on the date of accident. The driver of the
car who was driving the same on particular day had valid
and effective driving licence to drive the particular type of
vehicle.
7. 2nd respondent in its written statement had
admitted that they issued the policy in respect of the Car
bearing No.KA 19 MD 6262, but the liability of the 2nd
respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of the
policy . It had also disputed the cause of the accident and
contended that the alleged accident was taken place only
due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the
driver of the said Tata Indica Car who parked the vehicle
on the extreme right side of the road without taking any
precautionary measures. Petition is bad for non joinder of
necessary parties of the insured and insurer of said Tata
Indica Car. The driver of the said car was not holding
valid and effective driving license also without permit at
the time of accident.
SCCH.13 8 MVC.642 & 774/2015
8. Both the respondents have denied the rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Car
bearing No.KA 19 MD 6262. They have also disputed the
age, avocation and income of the deceased and contended
that the compensation claimed by the petitioners in both
the cases is excessive, exorbitant and speculative. On the
above grounds, both the respondents prayed for dismissal
of both the petitions.
9. On the basis of the above rival contentions of
the parties, the following issues have been framed:-
MVC.NO.642/2015
1. Whether petitioners prove that they are the Legal
Representatives of the deceased- Sri.N.Basavaraja
@ Basavaraj?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, deceased
succumbed to the injuries sustained in RTA on
16.1.2015 at about 12 noon involving Audi Car ?
3. Whether respondent proves that the accident had
occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of
the deceased ?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as claimed? If so, to what extent?
5. What order or Award?
SCCH.13 9 MVC.642 & 774/2015
MVC.NO.774/2015
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the deceased
Sri.Sadashiva A.S. son of A.M.Shekharappa, aged
about 28 years was died in a road traffic accident
that occurred on 16.1.2015 at about 12 p.m. on
Hosur Road, Elevated flyover, near G.B.Palya bus
stop, Benagaluru city, whether the deceased was
proceeding on his Tata Indica Car bearing
Reg.No.KA 51 A 5960, due to rash and negligent act
of driving of Audi car driver, vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA 19 MD 6262 as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioners proves that they are the
Legal representatives of the deceased and they are
depending on the income of the deceased ?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation and from whom?
4. What order or Award?
10. In order to prove the petition claim, as the
evidence was adduced before different courts, the
petitioners were separately examined whereby, petitioner
No.1, father of deceased in MVC.642/2015 was examined
as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.8.
Respondents have examined four witnesses as RW.1 to
RW.4 and got marked documents as Ex.R.1 to R.7.
SCCH.13 10 MVC.642 & 774/2015
Petitioner No.1 in MVC.774/2015 who is the father
of deceased Sadashiva was examined as PW.1 and got
marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.19.
11. Heard the arguments of both the sides .
12. Taking into consideration, the oral and
documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal, my
findings to the above issues in both the cases are as
under:-
MVC.642/2015 :
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the affirmative
Issue No.3: In the Negative
Issue No.4: Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.5: As per final order for the
following:-
MVC.774/2015:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the affirmative
Issue No.3: Partly in the Affirmative
IssueNo.4: As per final order for the following:-
SCCH.13 11 MVC.642 & 774/2015
REASONS
13. As per the orders of Hon'ble Chief Judge in
Misc.315/2016 dated: 14.12.2016, MVC.774/2015 was
transferred to this court. After transfer of the case, Memo
for clubbing MVC.642/2015 and 774/2015 filed on behalf
of respondent No.2 insurance company came to be
allowed as per order dated: 12.1.2017.
14. Issue Nos.2 & 3 in MVC.642/2015 and Issue
No.1 in MVC.774/2015: The petitioners in
MVC.642/2015 are the legal representatives of the
deceased N.Basavaraja @ Basavaraj and petitioners in
MVC.774/2015 are the legal representatives of the
deceased Sadashiva.A.S. Both these petitions are filed
by the legal representatives claiming compensation in
respect of death of Basavaraja @ Basavaraj and Sadashiva
in road traffic accident. MVC.774/2015 came to be
transferred to this court as per the Order in
Misc.315/2016 dated:14.12.2016. Thereafter both these
cases are taken together for disposal by a common
judgment as both cases arise of out the same accident.
SCCH.13 12 MVC.642 & 774/2015
15. It is the contention of the petitioners that on
16.1.2015 at about 12 noon, deceased N.Basavaraju @
Basavaraj, Sadashiva and others were proceeding on
Hosur-Bengaluru Elevated flyover in Tata Indica Car
bearing Reg.No.KA 51 A 5960 from Electronic city to Silk
Board and when they reached Garebavi playa Bus stand,
the left rear wheel of the car got punctured, so they
parked the car on the right side of the road. When the
owner-Sadashiva started removing the punctured wheel
and Basavaraja @ Basavaraj was standing behind the car
and was giving signals to the passing motor vehicles, at
that time, one Audi Car bearing Reg.No.KA 19 MD 6262
came in the same direction driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner so as to endangering human life,
hit Basavaraja @ Basavaraj and Sadashiva, on account of
which, they sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to
the injuries on the way to the hospital. So, as per the
contention of the petitioners, alleged accident occurred
due to rash & negligent driving by the driver of Audi car
bearing Regn.No.KA 19 MD 6262.
SCCH.13 13 MVC.642 & 774/2015
16. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Audi car
and respondent No.2 is its insurer whereby, both
respondents have filed their objection statement wherein
respondent No.1 admits that he is the owner of the car
and his vehicle being validly insured with respondent
No.2. He denies the alleged accident having occurred due
to rash & negligent driving by the driver of Audi car
bearing Regn.No.KA 19 MD 6262. Further, he had
contended that the charge sheet is filed against the driver
of the car in collusion with the Police. Further, he had
contended that the Tata Indica car bearing Regn.No.KA 51
A 5960 was parked on the right side of the road which
leads to Hosuru-Bengaluru elevated flyover and without
taking proper measures or not displaying any due sign
board to the other road users, alleged road was having
heavy traffic and the deceased parked the vehicle on the
right side of the road and he was standing on the middle
of the road, thereby due to negligence of the deceased,
alleged accident occurred.
17. On the other hand respondent No.2 had taken
the contentions that the accident is due to carelessness
SCCH.13 14 MVC.642 & 774/2015
and negligence on the part of the deceased who had
parked his car bearing Regn.No.KA 51 A 5960 on the
middle of the road without taking any precautionary
measures and deceased themselves caused the alleged
accident.
18. As the evidence was adduced before different
courts, the petitioners were separately examined whereby,
petitioner No.1 in MVC.642/2015 was examined as PW.1,
who is the father of deceased Basavaraja @ Basavaraj. In
his evidence affidavit, he has reiterated the petition
averments. In support of his oral evidence, he has
produced documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to P.8.
Petitioner No.1 in MVC.774/2015 who is the father of
deceased Sadashiva was examined as PW.1 and in his
evidence affidavit, he has reiterated the petition
averments. In support of his oral evidence, he has
produced documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to P.19.
The accident having occurred and Basavaraja @
Basavaraj and Sadashiva having sustaining injuries and
having succumbed to death is not in dispute. The very
SCCH.13 15 MVC.642 & 774/2015
disputed fact which is urged on behalf of respondent No.1
& 2 is the rash & negligent act by the deceased
themselves. Even in the cross-examination of PW.1 in
both the cases, nothing is made out so as to deny the fact
of Basavaraja @ Basavaraj and Sadashiva having died on
account of accidental injuries. Hence, the petitioners in
both the cases have proved their contention with regard to
death of Basavaraja @ Basavaraj and Sadashiva on
account of injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.
19. Now coming to the fact of rash & negligent
driving, whereby petitioners' contention is that the driver
of Audi car bearing Regn.No.KA 19 MD 6262 drove the
same in a rash & negligent manner so as to endanger
human life and dashed against Basavaraja @ Basavaraj
and Sadashiva who were beside the Tata Indica car
bearing Regn.No.KA 51 A 5960. Further it is contended
that the deceased Sadashiva was changing the tyre and
Basavaraja @ Basavaraj was standing behind the said car
giving indication to other vehicles. So, both were outside
the car. The car belonging to respondent No.1 had hit
SCCH.13 16 MVC.642 & 774/2015
Sadashiva and Basavaraja @ Basavaraj on account of
which they sustained grievous injuries and thereafter,
succumbed to the said injuries sustained. In order to
prove the petitioners' contention, petitioners have relied
on the Police documents whereby, PW.1 in
MVC.642/2015 had produced Ex.P.1 to P.5. Ex.P.3 is the
charge sheet whereby, the driver of Audi car bearing
Regn.No.KA 19 MD 6262 was charge sheeted for the
offences punishable under Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC.
Ex.P.4 is the Inquest and Ex.P.6 is the PM Report which
further substantiates petitioners' contention that death of
Basavaraja @ Basavaraj was on account of accidental
injuries sustained. Ex.P.2 is the Mahazar and Ex.P.5 is
the IMV Report. As per Ex.P.2 mahazar, the road where
the accident occurred measures 25 feet in width and on
the said road there is no restriction for the movement of
the vehicles. Further it is noted in the Mahazar that Tata
Indica car bearing Regn.No.KA 51 A 5960 was stationed
on the right side of the road as left back tyre of the car
was punctured. Sadashiva was removing the punctured
tyre, Basavaraja @ Basavaraj was standing behind the
SCCH.13 17 MVC.642 & 774/2015
said car, giving directions to the moving vehicles. So,
when three persons could be seen at the spot, whereby,
one more person by name Prasanna was taking the
stepney wheel from the car, all the three persons were
seen at the spot. The Tata Indica car bearing Regn.No.KA
51 A 5960 was stationed on the right hand corner of the
road median. It is also seen that deceased Basavaraja @
Basavaraj by standing in front of the car was giving
indication to moving vehicles. When such being the case,
as the driver of Audi car bearing Regn.No.KA 19 MD 6262
was in high speed, the alleged accident had resulted. If at
all the driver of the Audi car bearing Regn.No.KA 19 MD
6262 was a little careful about his movement on the busy
road and if at all he had concentrated on his driving then,
he could have seen three persons standing on the road
and also the vehicle without any movement that too in
day light by which he could have avoided the accident.
20. The Inquest and PM Report of deceased
Sadashiva are marked as Ex.P.6 & P.7 respectively. His
death certificate is also produced and it is marked as
SCCH.13 18 MVC.642 & 774/2015
Ex.P.9. In this case, along with the spot mahazar, spot
sketch is marked as Ex.P.4. As per the said sketch, spot
marked as (A) is the place where Basavaraja @ Basavaraj
was standing by the right side of the road indicating other
vehicles. The spot marked as (B) is the place where
Sadashiva was removing the tyre. The spot (C) is the
place where Tata Indica car bearing Regn.No.KA 51 A
5960 was stationed. If this spot (C) is taken into
consideration, Tata Indica car was just by the right side of
the road median. The road measuring 25 feet in width at
one side having sufficient space to proceed. The tyre
mark that had been noted in Ex.P.4 sketch makes out
that had been noted in Ex.P.4 sketch makes out that the
Audi car had moved from the left side towards right side
and hit against Basavaraja @ Basavaraj and then hit
Sadashiva. This itself makes out the rash & negligent
driving by the driver of Audi car bearing Regn.No.KA 19
MD 6262.
21. Respondent No.2 in MVC.642/2015 in order to
prove its contention got examined its official as RW.1 and
SCCH.13 19 MVC.642 & 774/2015
in his affidavit filed for examination-in-chief, he has
stated that the accident had occurred only due to
negligence on the part of the Tata Indica car bearing
Regn.No.KA 51 A 5960 who had parked his vehicle on the
right side of the road without any indication and deceased
was standing on the middle of the road without observing
the movement of vehicles and himself was responsible for
the alleged accident, there is no negligence on the part of
the driver of Audi car bearing Regn.No.KA 19 MD 6262.
He has produced the policy copy which is marked as
Ex.R.1, sketch is marked as Ex.R.2, Mahazar is marked
as Ex.R.3 & IMV Report is marked as Ex.R.4. In the
cross-examination he has admitted that Police on
investigation had filed charge sheet against the driver of
insured vehicle. Further in the cross-examination, RW.1
has stated that contents in Ex.R.2 sketch is correct.
RW.2 is respondent No.1 who has reiterated the
contention of his objection statement in his evidence
affidavit. It is also his contention that the alleged road
was having very heavy traffic and deceased had parked
the vehicle on the right side of the road and was standing
SCCH.13 20 MVC.642 & 774/2015
on the middle of the road. As per the Mahazar, deceased
were not standing on the middle of the road, they were by
the side of the car which was stationed on the right end
corner of the road median. Apart from that, the fact that
has to be observed is that, the petitioners' very contention
is that, the tyre of the Tata Indica car bearing Regn.No.KA
51 A 5960 was punctured, hence, it was stationed on the
right side of the road near the median. So, if at all any
mechanical defect in the vehicle noticed all of a sudden
while on the road, it takes a little bit time to remove the
vehicle from the road. On the other hand, here in the
present case, the owner of Tata Indica car bearing
Regn.No.KA 51 A 5960 was making all efforts to change
the punctured tyre and in that event, the accident had
occurred. The counsel on behalf of respondent No.2 had
put forth the suggestion in the cross-examination that as
it is a high-way road, in case of brake-down of vehicle, it
has to be immediately intimated to the toll but here in the
present case, it is not the contention of respondent No.1
that inmates of Tata Indica car bearing Regn.No.KA 51 A
5960 car had kept the punctured vehicle on the road for
SCCH.13 21 MVC.642 & 774/2015
long duration unattended. Here it is very important to
make out that immediately the inmates of the car had
taken all precautions by getting out of the car and had
also indicated the other moving vehicles and in that
extent, the present accident had occurred. RW.2 having
produced certified copy of the judgment in CC.421/2015
whereby it makes out that he had been acquitted in the
criminal case. Merely because the driver of the car had
been acquitted, it does not mean that there is no
negligence on his part. He had not been held guilty as the
prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt. Respondent No.3 in MVC.642/2015
was examined as RW.3. He is none other than petitioner
No.1 in MVC.774/2015. In his cross-examination, he has
stated that after the death of his son Sadashiva, the
vehicle is transferred in the name of Nandish, he has
produced the notarised copy of DL of Sadashiva which is
marked as Ex.R.7. He has also denied the suggestion
that the vehicle of Sadashiva was not validly insured and
therefore, the owner is liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners. But in both the cases, the petitioners hve
SCCH.13 22 MVC.642 & 774/2015
filed claim petition against the the insured and insurer of
the offending vehicle that is, Audi car bearing Regn.No.KA
19 MD 6262. In addition, the charge sheet is also against
the driver of Audi car bearing Regn.No.KA 19 MD 6262.
22. Respondent No.2 had also summoned the
Investigating Police Officer who had filed charge sheet and
he had been examined as RW.4. In his evidence, he has
stated that he had visited the spot and accident had
occurred at the elevated toll flyover on Hosuru Road at
Garebavipalya. At the spot of accident, Tata Indica car
bearing Regn.No.KA 51 A 5960 was on the right side of
the road. Further he has stated that at the spot there was
indicating marks such as restriction stones and branches
of tree kept around the vehicle. This evidence of RW.4
further supports the contention of the petitioners that not
only the inmates of the Tata Indica car bearing
Regn.No.KA 51 A 5960 was giving indication to the on
coming vehicles but they have also kept stones and
branches of tree to indicate that the Tata Indica car is
stationed at the spot due to some problem. In the cross-
SCCH.13 23 MVC.642 & 774/2015
examination, RW.4 has stated that there was no need for
conducting investigation under Sec.122 of MV Act as Tata
Indica car was kept on the road for repair work and one of
the person was attending the same by giving direction to
change the punctured tyre. He has also admitted that if
there is any mechanical problem while on the road, it has
to be intimated to the toll and concerned officials will
make arrangements for towing the vehicle so as to clear
the road. He has also denied that any immediate repair
work or attending puncture of the tyre can not be done on
the flyover. Though respondent No.2 had adduced
evidence by examining its official and investigating officer,
nothing is made out so as to prove its contention that the
deceased persons were negligent and due to their
negligent act, the accident had occurred. Further, every
person will be cautious about his life and no one will
simply stand on the road without taking any care or
precaution for himself. If at all the driver of the Audi car
bearing Regn.No.KA 19 MD 6262 is aware of the road
rules and had some consciousness about the road
accident and also consequences of rash & negligent
SCCH.13 24 MVC.642 & 774/2015
driving then, he would have driven the vehicle slowly and
avoided the accident. The offending car had directly hit
the persons who were attending the stationed vehicle. So,
this itself proves the contention of the petitioners that the
alleged accident had occurred due to rash & negligent
driving by the driver of Audi car bearing Regn.No.KA 19
MD 6262. In the result, respondent No.2 had failed to
prove issue No.3 in MVC.642/2015 that the alleged
accident being occurred solely due to negligence on the
part of the deceased. Hence, I hold Issue No.2 in
MVC.642/2015 and Issue No.1 in MVC.774/2015 in the
affirmative and Issue No.3 in MVC.642/2015 in the
negative.
23. The counsel on behalf of respondent No.2 had
relied on the decision reported in:
1. ILR 2016 Kar. 1585 -The Managing Director, BMTC vs.
Sri.Deanish.M.A. & others;
2. 2009 ACJ 2003 -Rajrani & others vs. Oriental
Ins.Co.Ltd., & others,
SCCH.13 25 MVC.642 & 774/2015
3. 2013 ACJ 56 - United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs.
Jaswant Singh & others.
I have perused these decisions. Though, counsel on
behalf of respondent No.2 had relied on the above referred
decisions with regard to composite negligence, as
discussed supra, this Tribunal had given a clear finding
that the alleged accident is due to rash & negligent driving
by the driver of Audi car bearing Regn.No.KA 19 MD 6262
and there is no negligence on the part of the deceased
persons. Hence, there is no any contributory or
composite negligence on the part of the deceased persons.
In the circumstance, above referred decisions are not
applicable to the case on hand.
24. Issue No.4 in MVC.642/2015 & Issue No.3
in MVC.774/2015 :
The petitioners in MVC.642/2015 and
MVC.774/2015 having proved that the accident occurred
due to rash & negligent driving by the driver of Audi car
bearing Regn.No.KA 19 MD 6262 and Basavaraja @
Basavaraj and Sadashiva died on account of accidental
SCCH.13 26 MVC.642 & 774/2015
injuries in the road traffic accident, the petitioners are
entitled for compensation. The 1st respondent is the
owner of Audi car bearing Regn.No.KA 19 MD 6262
which is insured with 2nd respondent and policy marked
as Ex.R.1 in MVC.642/2015 was in force on the date of
accident, both respondent No.1 & 2 in both the cases are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners to the quantum arrived as below:
(A) : QUANTUM IN MVC.642/2015 :-
25. Issue No.1 : Claimants no.1 to 3 are before
this Tribunal seeking compensation in the capacity of
LRs of the deceased. 1st petitioner has examined himself
as PW.1 and filed his affidavit stating that he is the father
and 2nd petitioner is the mother and 3rd petitioner is the
minor sister of the deceased Basavaraja @ Basavaraj. The
respondents have not seriously disputed their
relationship or status as LRs of the deceased. The names
and above relationship of the petitioners with the
deceased are reflected in Ex.P.7, notarized copy of ration
SCCH.13 27 MVC.642 & 774/2015
card and Ex.P.4 inquest report. Since there is no
evidence to the contrary led by the respondents and there
are no rival claimants the above material is suffice to hold
that they are the LRs of the deceased Basavaraja @
Basavaraj. Hence, this issue is answered in affirmative
26. (i) TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY AND
FUNERAL EXPENSES: - Basavaraja @ Basavaraj had
met with an accident on 16.1.2015 and he succumbed to
the injuries on the way to the hospital. Petitioners are the
resident of Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga district
whereby, the accident occurred near Electronic City,
Bengaluru. The dead body was shifted to St.John's
Hospital, Bengaluru and after post mortem, his body was
brought to the place of his residence, thereafter funeral
and obsequies was conducted. Hence, taking into
consideration this fact, it is reasonable to hold that the
petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- under
the above head.
27. (ii) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: Petitioner No.1 &
2 being the parents and petitioner No.3 is the minor
SCCH.13 28 MVC.642 & 774/2015
sister of the deceased. PW.1 father of the deceased has
deposed in his evidence that his deceased son was
working as car driver under various owners and getting
monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. It is also contended that
he was aged 25 years at the time of his death. In support
of his evidence, he has produced Ex.P.8, DL of the
deceased. On perusal of the said document, it makes out
the date of birth of the deceased was 6.3.1986 and he
holds DL for PSV BUS, MCWG, TRANS & LMVCA. So, the
class of vehicles for which deceased Basavaraja @
Basavaraj was holding DL itself makes out that he was
holding DL for heavy goods vehicle, light goods vehicle as
well as transport vehicle. So, he being driver by profession
and aged 28 - 29 years at the time of accident, by taking
into consideration the normal wages being paid to a driver
with additional Bata charges, his monthly income can be
reasonably considered as Rs.12,000/- p.m., or
Rs.1,44,000/- per annum.
28. In the decision reported in (2013) 9 Supreme
Court Cases 54 -Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir Singh and
others wherein it is held as follows:
SCCH.13 29 MVC.642 & 774/2015
A. Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Ss.166 & 168 -
Fatal accident -Computation of compensation -
Future prospects of deceased -Consideration of -
Addition to be made to actual income of deceased
(which existed at the time of his death) towards his
future prospects - Rule laid down as to, in Sarla
Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 in relation to salaried
persons - Subsequently clarified and also made
applicable to persons self-employed or engaged on
fixed wages in Santosh Devi, (2012) 6 SCC 421 -
Further clarified herein in relation to self-employed
persons or those on fixed wages - Different additions
to actual income for different age groups of such
persons - Specified
- Held, in case of self-employed persons or
persons with fixed wages, the actual income of the
deceased must be enhanced for purpose of
computation of compensation: (i) by 50% where his
age was below 40 years, (ii) by 30% where he
belonged to age group of 40 to 50 years, and (iii) by
15% where he was between age group of 50 to 60
years - However, no such addition/enhancement
permissible where deceased exceeds the age of 60
years - For the above purpose, reiterated, actual
income would mean income after paying tax, if any -
Tort law - Compensation/damages - Future
prospects.
SCCH.13 30 MVC.642 & 774/2015
This Tribunal had gone through the entire judgment and
as per the above referred decision, it is clearly held that
there must be just compensation to be assessed which is
adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on
the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the
loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can
do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to
award of compensation.
29. This Tribunal would like to reiterate para.17 of
above referred decision which reads as follows:
Although the wages/income of those employed in
unorganized sectors has not registered a
corresponding increase and has not kept pace with
the increase in the salaries of the government
employees and those employed in private sectors,
but it cannot be denied that there has been
incremental enhancement in the income of those
who are self-employed and even those engaged on
daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis.
We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a
view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of
living, the persons falling in the latter category
periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this
context, it may be useful to give an example of a
SCCH.13 31 MVC.642 & 774/2015
tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching clothes.
If the cost of living increases and the prices of
essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase
the cost of his labour. So, will be the cases of
ordinary skilled and unskilled labour like barber,
blacksmith, cobbler, mason, etc.
So, as per the reference made in the above referred
decision in Para.17 in case of ordinary skilled and
unskilled labour like barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason,
etc., their cost of living increase as year passes and prices
of essentials will also goes up. So, in the event, it is
natural that there will be increase in the cost of his
labour. So, considering this fact, as held in the above
referred decision, future prospects of the deceased should
also be taken into consideration to by making applicable
the appropriate enhancement for the age group of the
deceased which is arrived as follows:
30. This Tribunal considered the income of the
deceased as Rs.12,000/- p.m. or Rs.1,44,000/- p.a.
Deceased was aged 28-29 years at the time of accident.
As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, actual
SCCH.13 32 MVC.642 & 774/2015
income of the deceased must be enhanced by 50%
towards future prospects for the purpose of computation
of compensation where his age was below 40 years.
Annual income works out at Rs.1,44,000 + 50%
i.e.,72,000/- = 2,16,000/-
31. Petitioner No.1 to 3 are being the parents and
minor sister of the deceased Basavaraja @ Basavaraj who
are all dependents on the deceased. So, there were three
dependants on the deceased, they are entitled for the loss
of dependency. So, as per the ratio laid down in Sarla
Verma's decision, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), when
there are three dependants, 1/3rd of the income of the
deceased is to be deducted towards his personal
expenses. While discussing in foregoing paras, this
Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the annual
income of the deceased is at Rs.2,16,000/- p.a. and the
1/3rd of the income of the deceased i.e. Rs.72,000/- has
to be deducted towards his personal expenses and after
deduction of the said amount, it works out to
Rs.2,16,000 - 72,000 = Rs.1,44,000/- So, Rs.1,44,000/-
SCCH.13 33 MVC.642 & 774/2015
would be the loss of yearly dependency to the
petitioners. Admittedly the deceased was a bachelor, aged
28 - 29 years at the time of accident. In the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3105 -
(MunnaLal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma
and others) it is held that the multiplier is to be used with
reference to the age of the deceased. Therefore, this
Tribunal feels to take the age of the deceased to take the
multiplier. According to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation- 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the multiplier applicable
between the age group of 26 -30 years is "17". Therefore,
on taking the multiplicand and the yearly loss of earning,
Rs.1,44,000 x 17 = Rs.24,48,000 would be the loss of
dependency to the petitioners, which is just and fair
compensation.
32. (iii) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION:-
Admittedly, the petitioners are the parents and minor
sister of the deceased. It is contended that he was a driver
and out of his entire income, he was contributing and
maintaining his family members. Petitioners are the
SCCH.13 34 MVC.642 & 774/2015
parents & minor sister of the deceased who have been
deprived of love and affection of their beloved. So, all the
three members are entitle for loss of love and affection of
the deceased. Therefore, it is just and proper to award
Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of love and affection.
33. (iv) LOSS OF ESTATE: Having regard to the
age and prospectus of the life of the deceased, this
Tribunal feels that it is just and proper to award
Rs.30,000/- towards the loss of estate, which is the just
and fair compensation.
34. Thus petitioners are entitled for compensation
under the following heads:-
1. Transportation of dead body & Rs. 25,000/-
funeral expenses:
2. Loss of dependency: 24,48,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection: 40,000/-
4. Loss of estate: 30,000/-
Total: Rs.25,43,000/-
Hence, this Tribunal feels it is just and proper to award
the compensation of Rs.25,43,000/- to the petitioners,
which is the just and fair compensation.
SCCH.13 35 MVC.642 & 774/2015
(B) :QUANTUM IN MVC.774/2015:
35. Issue No.2 : Claimants no.1 to 3 are before this
Tribunal seeking compensation in the capacity of LRs of
the deceased. 1st petitioner has examined himself as
PW.1 and filed his affidavit stating that he is the father
and 2nd petitioner is the mother and 3rd petitioner is the
younger brother of the deceased Sadashiva. The
respondents have not seriously disputed their
relationship or status as LRs of the deceased. The names
and above relationship of the petitioner with the deceased
are reflected in Ex.P.12, notarized copy of ration card and
Ex.P.6 inquest report. Since there is no evidence to the
contrary led by the respondents and there are no rival
claimants the above material is suffice to hold that they
are the LRs of the deceased. Hence, this issue is
answered in affirmative
36. (i) TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY AND
FUNERAL EXPENSES: - Sadashiva had met with an
accident on 16.1.2015 and he succumbed to the injuries
on the way to the hospital. Petitioners are the resident of
SCCH.13 36 MVC.642 & 774/2015
Andenahalli village, Chikkangala post, Kaduru Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru district whereby, the accident occurred
near Electronic City, Bengaluru. The dead body was
shifted to St.John's Hospital, Bengaluru and after post
mortem, his body was brought to the place of his
residence, thereafter funeral and obsequies was
conducted. Hence, taking into consideration this fact, it
is reasonable to hold that the petitioners are entitled for a
sum of Rs.25,000/- under the above head.
37. (ii) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: Petitioner No.1 &
2 being the parents and petitioner No.3 is the younger
brother of the deceased. Father of the deceased Sadashiva
who got himself examined as PW.1 has stated in his
evidence that his deceased son was hale and healthy and
he was aged 28 years, working as driver and also owning
one Tempo traveler bearing Regn.No.KA 51 B 2127 and
Tata Indica car bearing Regn.No.KA 51 A 5960. He was
earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- p.m.. It is also stated that
his son had hired the above said vehicles to Janani Tours
& Resorts Pvt.Ltd., M.K.Travels and L.V.Travels. It is also
SCCH.13 37 MVC.642 & 774/2015
contended that he was aged 28 years at the time of his
death, he was the only earning member of the family and
PW.1 being the father, petitioner No.2 being the mother
and petitioner No.3 being the brother were entirely
depending on the income of the deceased. On account of
unnatural death of their son, their life has become
miserable and they are undergoing deep mental shock
and agony. In order to prove their contention, petitioner s
have produced DL of the deceased marked as Ex.P.10
whereby date of birth of deceased Sadashiva is mentioned
as 15.5.1983. So, he was 31 years at the time of
accident. On perusal of the said document, it makes out
that he holds DL for MCWG, LMV, LMVCAB. Petitioners
have produced his income documents which is marked as
Ex.P.15 issued by Janani Tours & Resorts Pvt.Ltd.,
wherein it is stated that Sadashiva was driving the
vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA 51 A 5960 and he died in
road traffic accident, whereby his monthly car hire income
from attachment of the said vehicle to their company is
Rs.15,000/-. Ex.P.16 are six cash vouchers issued in
respect of vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA 51 B 2127 which
SCCH.13 38 MVC.642 & 774/2015
makes out this vehicle was attached to MK Travels.
Ex.P.17 is the B Register Extract in respect of vehicle
No.KA 51 A 5960 and the vehicle No.KA 51 B 2127
whereby both the vehicles stands in the name of
Sadashiva.A.S. who is deceased in this case. This
document makes out that he is the owner of the motor
cab and maxi cab vehicle. There is also document to
make out that he had left the vehicle on hire basis. So,
taking into consideration the documentary evidence on
record with regard to the income of the deceased and the
ownership of the vehicle, his monthly income can be
reasonably considered as Rs.24,000/- or Rs.2,88,000/-
per annum.
38. In the decision reported in (2013) 9 Supreme
Court Cases 54 -Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir Singh and
others wherein it is held as follows:
A. Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Ss.166 & 168 -
Fatal accident -Computation of compensation -
Future prospects of deceased -Consideration of -
Addition to be made to actual income of deceased
(which existed at the time of his death) towards his
future prospects - Rule laid down as to, in Sarla
SCCH.13 39 MVC.642 & 774/2015
Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 in relation to salaried
persons - Subsequently clarified and also made
applicable to persons self-employed or engaged on
fixed wages in Santosh Devi, (2012) 6 SCC 421 -
Further clarified herein in relation to self-employed
persons or those on fixed wages - Different additions
to actual income for different age groups of such
persons - Specified
- Held, in case of self-employed persons or
persons with fixed wages, the actual income of the
deceased must be enhanced for purpose of
computation of compensation: (i) by 50% where his
age was below 40 years, (ii) by 30% where he
belonged to age group of 40 to 50 years, and (iii) by
15% where he was between age group of 50 to 60
years - However, no such addition/enhancement
permissible where deceased exceeds the age of 60
years - For the above purpose, reiterated, actual
income would mean income after paying tax, if any -
Tort law - Compensation/damages - Future
prospects.
This Tribunal had gone through the entire judgment and
as per the above referred decision, it is clearly held that
there must be just compensation to be assessed which is
adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on
the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the
SCCH.13 40 MVC.642 & 774/2015
loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can
do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to
award of compensation.
39. This Tribunal would like to reiterate para.17 of
above referred decision which reads as follows:
Although the wages/income of those employed in
unorganized sectors has not registered a
corresponding increase and has not kept pace with
the increase in the salaries of the government
employees and those employed in private sectors,
but it cannot be denied that there has been
incremental enhancement in the income of those
who are self-employed and even those engaged on
daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis.
We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a
view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of
living, the persons falling in the latter category
periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this
context, it may be useful to give an example of a
tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching clothes.
If the cost of living increases and the prices of
essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase
the cost of his labour. So, will be the cases of
ordinary skilled and unskilled labour like barber,
blacksmith, cobbler, mason, etc.
SCCH.13 41 MVC.642 & 774/2015
So, as per the reference made in the above referred
decision in Para.17 in case of ordinary skilled and
unskilled labour like barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason,
etc., their cost of living increase as year passes and prices
of essentials will also goes up. So, in the event, it is
natural that there will be increase in the cost of his
labour. So, considering this fact, as held in the above
referred decision, future prospects of the deceased should
also be taken into consideration to by making applicable
the appropriate enhancement for the age group of the
deceased which is arrived as follows:
40. This Tribunal considered the income of the
deceased as Rs.24,000/- p.m. or Rs.2,88,000/- p.a.
Deceased was aged 31 years at the time of accident. As
per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, actual income
of the deceased must be enhanced by 50% towards future
prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation
where his age was below 40 years. Annual income works
out at Rs.2,88,000 + 50% i.e.,1,44,000/- = 4,32,000/-
SCCH.13 42 MVC.642 & 774/2015
41. Petitioner No.1 & 2 are being the parents who
are dependents on the deceased and petitioner No.3 who
is major brother of deceased can not be considered as a
dependant. So, there were two dependants on the
deceased, they are entitled for the loss of dependency. So,
as per the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma's decision,
reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), when there are two to
three dependants, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased is
to be deducted towards his personal expenses. While
discussing in foregoing paras, this Tribunal had come to
the conclusion that the annual income of the deceased is
at Rs.4,32,000/- p.a. and the 1/3rd of the income of the
deceased i.e. Rs.1,44,000/- has to be deducted towards
his personal expenses and after deduction of the said
amount, it works out to Rs.4,32,000 - 1,44,000 =
Rs.2,88,000/- So, Rs.2,88,000/- would be the loss of
yearly dependency to the petitioners. Admittedly the
deceased was a bachelor, aged 31 years at the time of
accident. In the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported
in 2015 AIR SCW 3105 -(MunnaLal Jain and another vs.
Vipin Kumar Sharma and others) it is held that the
SCCH.13 43 MVC.642 & 774/2015
multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the
deceased. Therefore, this Tribunal feels to take the age of
the deceased to take the multiplier. According to the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarla
Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation- 2009 ACJ 1298
(SC), the multiplier applicable between the age group of 31
-35 years is "16". Therefore, on taking the multiplicand
and the yearly loss of earning, Rs.2,88,000 x 16 =
Rs.46,08,000 would be the loss of dependency to the
petitioners, which is just and fair compensation.
42. (iii) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION:-
Admittedly, the petitioners are the parents and brother of
the deceased. It is contended that he was a driver and out
of his entire income, he was contributing and maintaining
his family members. Petitioners are the parents &brother
of the deceased who have been deprived of love and
affection of their beloved. So, all the three members are
entitle for loss of love and affection of the deceased.
Therefore, it is just and proper to award Rs.40,000/-
towards the loss of love and affection.
SCCH.13 44 MVC.642 & 774/2015
43. (iv) LOSS OF ESTATE: Having regard to the
age and prospectus of the life of the deceased, this
Tribunal feels that it is just and proper to award
Rs.30,000/- towards the loss of estate, which is the just
and fair compensation.
44. Thus petitioners are entitled for compensation
under the following heads:-
1. Transportation of dead body & Rs. 25,000/-
funeral expenses:
2. Loss of dependency: 46,08,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection: 40,000/-
4. Loss of estate: 30,000/-
Total: Rs.47,03,000/-
Hence, this Tribunal feels it is just and proper to award
the compensation of Rs.47,03,000/- to the petitioners,
which is the just and fair compensation.
45. As per Sec.171 of the Motor Vehicle's Act, where
any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation, it
can direct that in addition to the amount of
compensation, simple interest shall be paid at such rate
and from such date nor earlier than the date of making
SCCH.13 45 MVC.642 & 774/2015
the claim. As per ruling reported in ILR 2000
Karnataka 1098, the case of Puttanna and another -
vs- Lakshmana and others, it is held that unless there
are special circumstances, interest that has to be awarded
on the compensation amount is 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of realization. Therefore, I hold that
the petitioners in both the cases are entitled for interest at
the rate of 6% p.a.
46. So far as liability is concerned, petitioners in
both the cases having proved that they are entitled for
compensation from the respondents, both respondents
No.1 & 2 in both cases are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation and in view of subsistence of insurance
policy, respondent NO.2 -insurance company shall
deposit compensation amount awarded in both the cases
in the court with interest at 6% p.a. Hence, I answer Issue
No.4 in both the cases accordingly.
47. Issue No.5 in MVC.642/2015 & Issue.No.4
in MVC.774/2015:- In view of my findings on the issue
of both the cases, I proceed to pass the following :-
SCCH.13 46 MVC.642 & 774/2015
ORDER
The petitions in MVC.No.642/2015 & MVC.774/2015 filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of M.V. Act are hereby allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2-Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.25,43,000/- to the petitioners in MVC.642/2015 and Rs.47,03,000/- to the petitioners in MVC.774/2015 with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2-Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount awarded in both the cases within two months from today.
Claim petition against respondent No.3 in MVC.642/2015 is dismissed.
On deposit of entire compensation awarded in MVC.642/2015, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for the SCCH.13 47 MVC.642 & 774/2015 compensation in the ratio of 40:40:20 and out of compensation awarded to the petitioner No.1 and 2, Rs.3,00,000/- each be released in favour of petitioner No.1 & 2 and the balance be deposited in their name for a period of three years respectively as FD, in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of their choice with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest on the said FD once in 3 months.
The entire share of minor petitioner No.3, shall be invested in FD in her name till her marriage without their being any premature claim in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank with liberty to withdraw periodical interest by their father-guardian/1st petitioners On deposit of entire compensation awarded in MVC.774/2015, petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are entitled for the compensation in the ratio of 50:50 and out of compensation awarded to the petitioner No.1 and 2, Rs.5,00,000/- each be released in their favour and the balance be deposited for a period of five years as FD, in their names in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of SCCH.13 48 MVC.642 & 774/2015 their choice with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest on the said FD once in 3 months.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case. Keep the original judgment in MVC.No.642/2015 and the copy thereof in MVC.No.774/2015.
Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and pronounced in the open court on 18th day of March 2017.) (PANCHAKSHARI M.) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE MVC.642/2015:
List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 : Nagamurthi List of documents marked for petitioners:
Ex.P.1 : FIR with Complaint
Ex.P.2 : Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : Charge sheet
Ex.P.4 : Inquest Report
Ex.P.5 : IMV Report
Ex.P.6 : PM report
SCCH.13 49 MVC.642 & 774/2015
Ex.P.7 : Notarised copy of Ration card (compared
with original & returned back to the witness) Ex.P.8 : DL of deceased List of witnesses & documents for respondents :
RW.1 : Shambhu Kumar RW.2 : Karthik Hegade RW.3 : A.M.Shekharappa RW.4 : K.Ravishankar Ex.R.1 : Policy copy Ex.R.2 : Sketch Ex.R.3 : Mahazar Ex.R.4 : IMV Report Ex.R.5 : CC of judgment in CC.421/2015 Ex.R.6 : Notarized copy of Election ID card
(Original perused and returned) Ex.R.7 : Notarized copy of DL of Sadashiva (Original perused and returned) IN MVC.774/2015:
List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 : A.M.Shekharappa List of documents marked for petitioners:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : FIR
Ex.P.3 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4 : Spot Sketch
Ex.P.5 : IMV Report
Ex.P.6 : Inquest Report
Ex.P.7 : PM Report
SCCH.13 50 MVC.642 & 774/2015
Ex.P.8 : Final Report
Ex.P.9 : Death certificate
Ex.P.10 : Attested copy of DL (Original verified and returned to the claimant) Ex.P.11 : G-Tree Ex.P.12 : Attested copy of Ration card (original verified & returned back to the claimant) Ex.P.13 : Attested copy of election ID card (original verified & returned back to the claimant) Ex.P.14 : Attested copy of election ID card (original verified & returned back to the claimant) Ex.P.15 : Salary certificate Ex.P.16 : Total six pay slips Ex.P.17 : B Register Extract Ex.P.18 : Attested copy of election ID card (original verified & returned back to the claimant) Ex.P.19 : Karnataka Bank pass book List of witnesses & documents for respondents : Nil (PANCHAKSHARI M.) II Addl.Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.SCCH.13 51 MVC.642 & 774/2015
AWARD SCCH.NO:13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.642/2015 PETITIONERS: 1. Sri.T.Nagamurthi, 53 years, S/o Thipperudrappa,
2. Smt.Eramma @ Veeramma, W/o T.Nagamurthi, Aged about 48 years
3. N.Aswini, 17 Years, D/o T.Nagamurthi, All are residing at Thenginagowra Samudra village, Ashok Siddapura Post, Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga Dist., Karnataka-567 535 Since, 3rd petitioner is minor, rept. by her father, 1st petitioner as natural guardian.
(By Smt.K.B.Roopa, Advocate) Vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri.N.Vivek Shetty, Major S/o Vithalarai Arai Shetty, No.4401, Nariguttu House , Sajipamooda Post, Bantwal Taluk, Mangalore-574 211.
(RC Owner of Audi A42OTDI Regd.No.KA-19-MD-6262) SCCH.13 52 MVC.642 & 774/2015
2. The Manager, Bharati Axa Genl.Ins.Co.Ltd., Regional office, 1st Floor, Farns Icon, Survey No.28, Doddanekkundi, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru-560 037.
(Insurer of Audi A42OTDI Regd.No.KA-19-MD-6262) Policy Issued at branch office:
Ground floor, No.203 & 207, Inland Avenue, M.G.Road, Mangalore-575 003.
(Policy No.FPV/I1369289/E2/05/ B1E217 valid from 10.5.2014 to 9.5.2015.
3. Mr.A.S.Sadashiva, 51 years, S/o A.M.Shekarappa, Since died, represented by his Lrs. Mr.A.M.Shekharappa D., S/o Late Mallappa, Residing at Andenahalli village, Chikkangala Post, Kadur Taluk, Chickmagalur Dist.
(Owner of Car bearing No.KA-51-A- 5960) (By Sri.Praddep H.S. Adv. for R1 Sri.M.K.Ramamurthy, Adv.for R2) Sri.M.N.Ningaraja, Adv. For R3)
-o0o-
SCCH.13 53 MVC.642 & 774/2015WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs._________ (Rupees _________________________________for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of ___________in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No.___________.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.Panchakashari M.), II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2-Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount of SCCH.13 54 MVC.642 & 774/2015 Rs.25,43,000/- to the petitioners with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2-Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount awarded in both the cases within two months from today.
Claim petition against respondent No.3 in is dismissed.
On deposit of entire compensation awarded, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for the compensation in the ratio of 40:40:20 and out of compensation awarded to the petitioner No.1 and 2, Rs.3,00,000/- each be released in favour of petitioner No.1 & 2 and the balance be deposited in their name for a period of three years respectively as FD, in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of their choice with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest on the said FD once in 3 months.
The entire share of minor petitioner No.3, shall be invested in FD in her name till her marriage without their SCCH.13 55 MVC.642 & 774/2015 being any premature claim in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank with liberty to withdraw periodical interest by their father-guardian/1st petitioners Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_ the .......... day of ................2017) MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU. COST OF PETITION By the Petitioner/s Respondents No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
METROPOLITAN AREA,
BENGALURU.
SCCH.13 56 MVC.642 & 774/2015
AWARD
SCCH.NO:13
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.774/2015 Petitioners i: 1. Sri.A.M.Shekharappa D., S/o Late Mallappa, Aged about 51 years,
2. Smt.Drakshayanamma, W/o Shekharappa, Aged about 46 years
3. Sri.Nandish A.S., S/o Shekharappa Aged about 26 years Petitioners No.1 and 2 are residing at Andenahalli village, Chikkangala Post, Kadur Taluk, Chikkamagalur-577 548.
Petitioner No.3 R/at NO.25, Varadenahalli, Doddaballapur, Bengaluru Rural-561203.
(By Sri.M.N.Ningaraja, Advocate) Vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri.N.Vivek Shetty, Major S/o Vithalarai Arai Shetty, No.4401, Nariguttu House , Sajipamooda Post, Bantwal Taluk, Mangalore-574 211.
SCCH.13 57 MVC.642 & 774/2015(RC Owner of Audi A42OTDI Regd.No.KA-19-MD-6262)
2. The Manager, Bharati Axa Genl.Ins.Co.Ltd., Regional office, 1st Floor, Farns Icon, Survey No.28, Doddanekkundi, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru-560 037.
(Insurer of Audi A42OTDI Regd.No.KA-19-MD-6262) Policy Issued at branch office:
Ground floor, No.203 & 207, Inland Avenue, M.G.Road, Mangalore-575 003.
(Policy No.FPV/I1369289/E2/05/ B1E217 valid from 10.5.2014 to 9.5.2015.
(By Sri.Praddep H.S. Adv. for R1 Sri.M.K.Ramamurthy, Adv.for R2)
-o0o-
WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs._________ (Rupees _________________________________for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of ___________in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No.___________.SCCH.13 58 MVC.642 & 774/2015
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.Panchakashari M.), II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The petitions filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of M.V. Act are hereby allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2-Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.47,03,000/- to the petitioners with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2-Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount awarded in both the cases within two months from today.
Claim petition against respondent No.3 in is dismissed.SCCH.13 59 MVC.642 & 774/2015
On deposit of entire compensation awarded petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are entitled for the compensation in the ratio of 50:50 and out of compensation awarded to the petitioner No.1 and 2, Rs.5,00,000/- each be released in their favour and the balance be deposited for a period of five years as FD, in their names in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of their choice with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest on the said FD once in 3 months.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_ the .......... day of ................2017) MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
SCCH.13 60 MVC.642 & 774/2015 COST OF PETITION By the Petitioner/s Respondents No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs. Decree Drafted Scrutinized by Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MEMBER, M.A.C.T, METROPOLITAN AREA, BENGALURU. SCCH.13 61 MVC.642 & 774/2015 SCCH.13 62 MVC.642 & 774/2015 ORDER The petitions in MVC.No.642/2015 &
MVC.774/2015 filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of M.V. Act are hereby allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2-Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.25,43,000/- to the petitioners in MVC.642/2015 and Rs.47,03,000/- to the petitioners in MVC.774/2015 with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2-Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount awarded in both the cases within two months from today.
Claim petition against respondent No.3 in MVC.642/2015 is dismissed.
On deposit of entire compensation awarded in MVC.642/2015, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for the compensation in the ratio of 40:40:20 and out of compensation awarded to the petitioner No.1 and 2, Rs.3,00,000/- each be released in favour of petitioner No.1 & 2 and the balance be deposited in their name for a period of three years respectively as FD, in any SCCH.13 63 MVC.642 & 774/2015 Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of their choice with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest on the said FD once in 3 months.
The entire share of minor petitioner No.3, shall be invested in FD in her name till her marriage without their being any premature claim in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank with liberty to withdraw periodical interest by their father-guardian/1st petitioners On deposit of entire compensation awarded in MVC.774/2015, petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are entitled for the compensation in the ratio of 50:50 and out of compensation awarded to the petitioner No.1 and 2, Rs.5,00,000/- each be released in their favour and the balance be deposited for a period of five years as FD, in their names in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of their choice with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest on the said FD once in 3 months.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case. Keep the original judgment in MVC.No.642/2015 and the copy thereof in MVC.No.774/2015.
Draw up award accordingly.
(PANCHAKSHARI M.) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.SCCH.13 64 MVC.642 & 774/2015
SCCH.13 65 MVC.642 & 774/2015