Bangalore District Court
) Sri Gopal Prasad Yadav vs M/S.United Travels on 11 December, 2015
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER'2015
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
MVC No.4882/2014
Petitioners: 1) Sri Gopal Prasad Yadav,
S/o.Panchap Gope,
Aged about 56 years,
2) Smt.Dayamanti Devi,
W/o.Gopal Prasad
Yadav,
Aged about 45 years,
Both are residing at
Dighi Talab,
Motisen Bagicha, Gaya,
Bihar 823 001.
(By Pillareddy, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents 1. M/s.United Travels,
: No.7917, 10th Cross,
Subhash Nagar,
Nelamangala Town,
Bangalore Rural
District.
(RC Owner of the Mini
Bus bearing
SCCH 1 2 MVC No.4882/2014
Reg.No.KA.52/6289)
2. Universal Sompo
General Insurance Co.,
Ltd.,
No.210, 213, A Wing,
Kristal Plaza, New Link
Road, 2nd Floor,
Opp:Infinity Hall,
Andheri West,
Mumbai - 58.
Also at:
The Manager,
M/s.Universal Sompo
General Insurance Co.,
Ltd., No.217/A,
3rd Floor,
Outer Ring Road,
Kasturi Nagar,
Opp:Sail Factory,
Bangalore 560 043.
(Policy
No.2313/53930288/0
0/000 Valid from
30.03.2014 to
29.03.2015)
(Respondent No.1 by Sri
K.T.Gurudev Prasad,
Advocate
Respondent No.2 by Sri Ravi
S.Samprathi, Advocate)
SCCH 1 3 MVC No.4882/2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.1 Crore from the respondents with regard to the death of Sri Kumar Gourav, son of petitioners No.1 and 2 in the road traffic accident that occurred at 09.30 am., on 30.09.2014 near E.G.L., Inner Ring Road, Domlur, Bengaluru.
2. Brief facts of the case are that:
It is contended in the petition that on 30.09.2014, at about 09.30 am., the deceased Kumar Gaurav, after carefully observing the traffic rules and regulations, was slowly and cautiously riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.05/JF.9217 on Inner Ring Road, towards Domlur Bridge and while proceeding so, a Mini Bus SCCH 1 4 MVC No.4882/2014 bearing registration No.KA.52/6289 came from behind driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety of others and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased and due to the tremendous impact, the deceased fell down and sustained multiple head injuries and died on the way to Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru.
3. It is contended that thereafter, the postmortem was conducted at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital and the body was thereafter handed over to the petitioners, who performed the last rites by spending Rs.50,000/- and also spent Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of the dead body.
4. It is contended that at the time of accident, deceased Kumar Gaurav was hale and healthy and SCCH 1 5 MVC No.4882/2014 he was aged 28 years and working as SQA Engineer with Xora Software Systems, Domlur, Bengaluru and getting a salary of Rs.55,000/- per month. It is further contended that the petitioners were wholly depending upon the income of the deceased and the deceased was contributing major portion of his income towards the maintenance of the petitioners.
5. It is contended that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of the mini bus driver and therefore, the jurisdictional Police have registered a case against the driver of the mini bus and the respondent No.1 being the owner and the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the same, are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
SCCH 1 6 MVC No.4882/2014
6. In pursuance of filing of the petition, this Tribunal issued notice to both the respondents and in response to the same, both the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed statement of objections.
7. The respondent No.1, the owner of the Mini Bus No.KA.52/6289 in the statement of objections, has contended that the averments of petition column No.1 to 7 of the claim petition are not within his knowledge and hence put the petitioners to strict proof of the same.
8. The averments of column No.8 to the effect that on 30.09.2014, at about 09.30 am., near Inner Ring Road, Domlur, the deceased Kumar Gaurav was driving the motorcycle bearing No.KA.05/JF.9217 carefully, cautiously observing the traffic rules and a mini bus bearing SCCH 1 7 MVC No.4882/2014 No.KA.52/6289 came in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, has been denied as false by the respondent No.1. The further averment that the accident has occurred due to the negligent driving of the mini bus is also denied. The respondent No.1 contends that the deceased himself came in a rash and negligent manner driving his motorcycle and he himself is responsible for the accident and he was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. It is contended that since the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased himself the petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. The averments of the petition that the deceased was aged 28 years and as SQA Engineer working in Xora Software Systems and earning Rs.55,000/- per month are all denied as false and SCCH 1 8 MVC No.4882/2014 the respondent No.1 has put the petitioners to strict proof of the same.
10. It is contended that the vehicle No.KA.52/6289 was insured with the respondent No.2 and the driver of the said vehicle had valid and effective driving license and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the accident has occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the mini bus, in that event, liability of paying compensation be saddled on the respondent No.2 and hence, the respondent No.1 has prayed the Tribunal to reject the petition.
11. The respondent No.2 has also filed statement of objections. It is contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence deserves to be dismissed in limine.
SCCH 1 9 MVC No.4882/2014
12. The respondent No.2 seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of the MV Act.
13. It is contended that as per Section 134(c) of the MV Act, it is mandatory duty of the respondent No.1-insured to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of injured and name of driver and further as per Section 158(6) of the MV Act, it is mandatory duty of the concerned police to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days and since both the respondent No.1 and the jurisdictional Police having failed to perform their mandatory duty, the petition as against the respondent No.2 deserves to be dismissed.
14. It is contended that the driver of the mini bus was not holding a valid and effective driving SCCH 1 10 MVC No.4882/2014 licence at the time of the accident and the respondent No.1 has handed over the possession of the vehicle to the driver who had no valid and effective driving licence and thereby it is contended by the respondent No.2 that there is breach of policy conditions.
15. It is admitted by respondent No.2 that the Mini Bus No.KA.52/6289 was insured with it and the liability if any is subject to terms and conditions of the policy.
16. The respondent No.2 has contended that it is not aware of the allegations in column No.1 to 14 and 17 to 21 of the petition and hence denied the same and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same.
17. In para No.11 of the objection statement, the respondent No.2 denies the very occurrence of SCCH 1 11 MVC No.4882/2014 the accident and involvement of the bus as the same is not within the knowledge of the respondent No.2.
18. In para 13 of the statement of objections, the respondent No.2 has contended that the accident did not take place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus as stated by the petitioners and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same.
19. In para 14 of the statement of objections, it is contended by the respondent No.2 that the accident in question did take place due to the negligence of the deceased himself, who while riding the motorcycle without having proper look out of the traffic, rode the same in rash and negligent manner and without observing the traffic SCCH 1 12 MVC No.4882/2014 along the road suddenly came to the middle of the road and caused the alleged accident.
20. In para 15 of the statement of objections, the respondent No.2 has denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same.
21. In para No.17 of the statement of objections, the respondent No.2 denies that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained in the alleged accident and thereby put the petitioners to strict proof of the same.
22. In para 20 opf the statement of objections, the respondent No.2 contends that the amount of compensation of Rs.1 crore claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, exaggerated, arbitrary and speculative when compared to SCCH 1 13 MVC No.4882/2014 comparable cases which have been disposed off. For all these reasons, the respondent No.2 has prayed the Tribunal to dismiss the above petition.
23. In view of contentions raised by both the parties, the following issues are framed:-
1) Whether the Petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 30.09.2014 at about 09.30 am., near EGL Inner Ring Road, Domlur, within the jurisdiction of Halasur Traffic Police Station on account of rash and negligent driving of the Mini Bus bearing registration No.KA.52/6289 by its driver?
2) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the accident occurred on account of negligent act of the deceased?
3) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
SCCH 1 14 MVC No.4882/2014
4) What Order?
24. In order to substantiate their case, on behalf of the petitioners', the petitioner No.1, who is the father of the deceased, has been examined as PW 1. The petitioners have also examined one more witness as PW 2. In all 20 documents came to be marked on behalf of the petitioners as Ex.P.1 to P.20.
25. On the other hand, the respondents have not examined anyone in support of their case.
26. I have heard the counsel for petitioners and the respondent.
27. The Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments:
1) 2015 AIR SCW 3105 SCCH 1 15 MVC No.4882/2014
2) 2912 AIR SCW 3901
3) 2013 ACJ 1403
4) 2015 (4) AKR 512
5) 2015(1) AKR 636
6) AIR 1977 SC 1735
7) 2013 AIR SCW 3258
28. I have given my anxious consideration to the principles laiddown in the above judgments.
29. Having heard the arguments, based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record, I record my findings on the above issues as under:-
1) In the affirmative,
2) In the negative,
3) Partly in the affirmative,
4) As per final order, for the following:-
SCCH 1 16 MVC No.4882/2014
REASONS
30. Issue No.1 and 2:- It is the case of the petitioners that on 30.09.2014 at about 09.30 am., their son deceased Kumar Gaurav was riding motorcycle No.KA.52/JF.9217 towards Domlur Bridge slowly, cautiously and carefully by observing the traffic rules and at that time, when he was proceeding near EGL Inner Ring Road, Domlur, a Mini Bus No.KA.52/6289 came from the rear side, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of their son and there occurred an accident and in the accident, their son having sustained grievous injuries to head, succumbed to the injuries while shifting to hospital and thereby, the petitioners attribute the negligence on the part of the driver of the mini bus for the accident as well as the death of the deceased.
SCCH 1 17 MVC No.4882/2014
31. The respondents, on the other hand, while contending that the vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the mini bus, alleged that the accident occurred on account of the sole negligence of the deceased.
32. The petitioners in order to prove the allegations made against the driver of the Mini Bus No.KA.52/6289, examined the first petitioner as PW 1 and in his evidence, PW 1 has reiterated the averments of the petition. PW 1 in support of his evidence, has got marked the FIR, PM Report, Mahazar, Inquest Report, Sketch IMV Report and Charge Sheet as Ex.P.1 to P.7. PW 1 was subjected to cross-examination. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that he was not here when the accident tookplace and he cannot tell as to how the accident SCCH 1 18 MVC No.4882/2014 occurred. It is suggested to him that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of his son and not the driver of the bus and the said suggestion has been denied by him. He says that he does not know who lodged the complaint. It is suggested to him that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and some other vehicle has caused the accident and a false complaint is lodged by colleague of his son and that his son also contributed for the accident and the said suggestions have been denied by him.
33. Both the respondents having contended in their statement of objections that the accident has not occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the mini bus and having alternatively contended that the accident has occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased himself, SCCH 1 19 MVC No.4882/2014 and the respondent No.2 having denied the involvement of the vehicle in the accident, have not examined none to substantiate their case. PW 1 being not an eyewitness and the respondents having not examined the driver of the mini bus, the Tribunal has to rely on the documentary evidence to arrive at the conclusion as to at whose fault, the accident in question has occurred on account of which, petitioner's son having sustained injuries, succumbed to the same.
34. Now, let me appreciate both oral and documentary evidence available before the Court with regard to the negligence.
35. The petitioners though examined the petitioner No.1, but as per his own admission, he is not an eyewitness to the accident. Thus, the oral evidence of PW 1 would not help the petitioners in SCCH 1 20 MVC No.4882/2014 proving the negligence of the driver of the mini bus in occurrence of accident. However, PW 1 has got marked Ex.P.1 FIR and complaint, perusal of which reveal that the same is lodged by one Murali Radhakrishna, a colleague of the deceased.
Complaint is lodged on 30.09.2014 at 10.30 am., the accident has occurred at 09.30 am., on the same day. In the FIR and complaint, it is alleged that the accident has occurred on account of negligent driving of the mini bus No.KA.52/6289 by its driver, since the driver of the said mini bus having driven the same in rash and negligent manner dashed against Kumar Gaurav, on account of which Kumar Gaurav succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners have also produced Ex.P.2 - PM Report issued by Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru, which states that the death is due to head injury sustained. The petitioners also SCCH 1 21 MVC No.4882/2014 contended that in the accident, their son sustained grievous head injuries and succumbed to the same. Ex.P.3 is the Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.4 is the Inquest Mahazar and Ex.P.5 is the Spot Sketch and Ex.P.7 is the Charge Sheet, which reveal that the accident occurred on Inner Ring Road, which has a median and each side of the road has a width of 40 feet and the accident spot is shown to be 10 feet away from the center median and the mini bus has been shown to be coming from the rear side of the motorcycle on which the deceased was proceeding. The Police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the Mini Bus as per Ex.P.7, which is not in dispute. It has to be noted here that there are no cross roads near the spot of accident and thus, it can be said that both the vehicles were going on the straight road and thus it is a case of 'Res Ipsa Loquitor' meaning thereby, SCCH 1 22 MVC No.4882/2014 the accident speaks for itself to the effect that when the deceased was riding the motorcycle on the said road, it is the mini bus driver, who drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle fro rear side and thus, no negligence can be attributed to the deceased in occurrence of the accident, since as discussed above, when he was going ahead, the mini bus came from behind and dashed against his motorcycle and there occurred an accident. Even though both the respondents contend that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, but in a case reported in 2014 Kant M.A.C. 330 (SC) (Meera Devi and another Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others), it is held that No cogent evidence to prove plea of contributory negligence, doctrine of common law cannot be applied. Further, the respondents have denied the involvement of the vehicle in the SCCH 1 23 MVC No.4882/2014 accident, the same has not been proved by adducing cogent evidence.
36. Therefore, on an overall scrutiny of the case of the petitioners vis-a-vis the respondent and the documents placed on record by the petitioners, though the respondents tried to attribute negligence to the deceased himself, but as discussed above, the evidence of PW 1 and the documents stated above, make it abundantly clear that the accident has occurred, purely on account of the negligence of the driver of the mini bus No.KA.52/6289 in driving the mini bus in rash and negligent manner and dashing against the same to the motorcycle on which the deceased was traveling. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 in the negative.
SCCH 1 24 MVC No.4882/2014
37. Issue No.3:- It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the father, petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased. To prove the relationship of the deceased with the petitioners, the petitioners have produced copy of Aadhaar Card of the petitioner No.1 as Ex.P.8, copy of the Aadhaar Card of the petitioner No.2 as Ex.P.9, copy of the PAN Card of the deceased as Ex.P.10, SSLC Marks card of the deceased as Ex.P.11 and notarized copy of the Passport of the deceased as Ex.P.19. These documents, inter-alia, reveal the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased as parents. Hence, for the purpose of this case, it can be said that the petitioners are the L.Rs., of the deceased Kumar Gaurav.
38. In a case of death in a road traffic accident, while awarding compensation, the age, SCCH 1 25 MVC No.4882/2014 avocation, income and number of dependents, are the major factors to be taken in to consideration.
39. In the case on hand, the petitioners contend that the deceased was aged 28 years and working as SQA Engineer with Xora Software Systems, No.72, 2nd and 3rd Floor, Unitues Technology, Domlur, Bengaluru and drawing a salary of Rs.55,000/- per month and that the petitioners were entirely dependant on the income of the deceased. These averments are reiterated in the affidavit in the form of examination in chief of PW 1.
40. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, there is ample documentary evidence in the form of SSLC Marks Card marked as Ex.11 and Passport marked as Ex.P.19, both of them SCCH 1 26 MVC No.4882/2014 reveal the date of birth of deceased as 08.12.1986 and the accident having occurred on 30.06.2014, the deceased was running 28 years as contended by the petitioners.
41. So far as avocation and income of the deceased is concerned, PW 1, apart from his affidavit in the form of examination in chief, also filed Ex.P.13 - 11 Engineering Marks Cards of the deceased, Ex.P.14 - Convocation Certificate. These documents reveal that the deceased was a Bachelor in Engineering in Instrumentation Technology. The petitioners have also produced Ex.P.15 - Appointment Letter, which reveal that the deceased was appointed as SQA Engineer with Xora Software Systems Pvt., Ltd., on 5th November'2013 on a salary of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. The petitioners have also produced 5 Salary Slips SCCH 1 27 MVC No.4882/2014 issued by the said firm, for the months of May, June, July, August and September'2014. For the months of May, June, July and August'2014, the deceased received gross salary of Rs.46,735/- and after deduction of Income Tax and Profession Tax, his net salary was Rs.43,611/- for May'2014, Rs.45,578/- for June'2014, Rs.46,153/- for July'2014, Rs.46,154/- for August'2014 and so far as for the month of September'2014 is concerned, the salary of the deceased was Rs.71,622/-, this is because of the fact that an amount of Rs.25,907/- was paid as bonus, which cannot be treated as regular income and thus, after deduction of Income Tax and Profession Tax, it was Rs.68,582/-.
42. Apart from production of these documents, the petitioners have also examined a witness by name Murali Radhakrishna as PW 2, SCCH 1 28 MVC No.4882/2014 who is working as HR Executive in Xora Software Systems, wherein the deceased was working and the evidence of PW 2 goes to show that the deceased Kumar Gaurav was working as SQA Engineer in the said firm and drawing a salary of Rs.46,735/-. In support of his evidence, he has produced Authorisation Letter marked as Ex.P.20. PW 2 has been cross-examined by the counsel for the respondent No.2, wherein, it is elicited from him that he is working as HR Executive since 8 years in the said company. It is suggested to him that conveyance, medical reimbursement and special allowance are not the part of the salary and the said suggestion has been denied by him. It is elicited from him that they have paid Rs.5 lakhs as personal accident benefit and the deceased was not entitled to GTI benefit, since he has not completed SCCH 1 29 MVC No.4882/2014 one year and the company has paid the contribution in respect of personal accident benefit.
43. Thus, from the evidence of PW 2 coupled with the documents discussed above, it is clear that the deceased was working as SQA Engineer with Xora Software Systems and getting a net salary of Rs.46,735/- and annually, it works out to Rs.5,60,820/-. Income over and above Rs.2,00,000/- fetches income tax at the rate of 10%. That means, 10% out of Rs.3,60,820/- has to be deducted towards income tax and Rs.2,400/- towards profession tax and after deduction of the same (Rs.3,60,820 minus 10% ie., 36,082 towards income tax, minus Rs.2,400 towards profession tax, balance comes to Rs.3,22,338/-), the gross salary of the deceased comes to Rs.3,22,338/- and thus annual income of the deceased, after SCCH 1 30 MVC No.4882/2014 deduction of income tax and profession tax, comes to Rs.5,22,338/-.
44. Regarding the deduction to be made towards personal expenses of the deceased, it appears that the deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to deduct 50% out of his income towards his personal expenses, had he been alive as per the decision reported in 2015 SCW 3105 (Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar and others) and 2012 AIR SCW 3901 (Amrit Bhanu Shali and Ors Vs. National Ins.Co., Ltd.,) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners. If that be so, the loss of annual dependency comes to Rs.2,61,169/- (Rs.5,22,338/- divided by 2).
45. In view of the principles liaddown in the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held that even if a SCCH 1 31 MVC No.4882/2014 person is self employed, loss of future prospects has to be taken into consideration. In the case on hand, the deceased was working as SQA Engineer with Xora Software Systems, Bengaluru and getting salary and thus, it can be assumed that the deceased had a bright future. Further, as the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of accident, 50%, from out of his income, has to be taken as loss of future prospects, which works out to Rs.2,61,169/- and thus the total (present income plus loss of future prospects) works out to Rs.5,22,338/-.
46. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of accident, the multiplier applicable is 17 and if we multiply the said amount of Rs.5,22.338/- by 17 multiplier, it works out to Rs.88,79,746/-, to which the SCCH 1 32 MVC No.4882/2014 petitioners are entitled to under the head loss of dependency.
47. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. AhmedAbad Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706 (Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case also, I deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security SCCH 1 33 MVC No.4882/2014 etc., since the petitioners are the parents of the deceased and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
48. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has taken a contention that the petitioners have received an amount of Rs.5 lakhs under the head of personal accident benefits and the same has to be deducted from the total compensation. The counsel for the petitioners, in his arguments contended that the said contention of the respondent No.2 cannot be accepted and in support of the same, he has relied upon a decision reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3258 (Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and Ors). In this judgment, the Apex Court held that "(A) Motor Vehicles Act. S.168 - Compensation - Determination - Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by SCCH 1 34 MVC No.4882/2014 claimants - Does not come within the periphery of Act to be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for deduction". I have gone through the said judgment and in para 19, the Supreme Court observed that the said aspect has been considered byn the Apex Court in Helen C.Rebello and Others Vs. Maharastra State Road Transport Corpn., and others and the Apex Court held that Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits etc., are all a "Pecuniary advantage" receivable by the heirs on account of one's death, but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for deduction and hence, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that SCCH 1 35 MVC No.4882/2014 the very contention of the counsel for the respondents No.2 cannot be accepted. It is further contended that since the family of the deceased has received the accidental death benefit on account of the employment of the deceased and that the benefit is paid under the head personal accidental benefit and since the employer has taken the policy of personal accidental benefit for their employees for the services rendered by the deceased by paying the premium, the said amount received by the petitioners, cannot be deducted from the amount of compensation now arrived. The principles laiddown in the said judgment are aptly applicable to the case on hand and thus, the contention of the respondent No.2 in this regard cannot be considered.
SCCH 1 36 MVC No.4882/2014
49. The details of compensation I propose to award are as under:
Sl. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs No 1 Loss of dependency 88,79,746.00 2 Compensation to the family 1,00,000.00 members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc. 3 Cost incurred on account of 10,000.00 funeral and ritual expenses Total 89,89,746.00 Rounded Off to 89,90,000.00
50. Regarding the liability to pay compensation amount is concerned, while answering issue No.1, it is held that the accident has occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the Mini Bus No.KA.52/6289 and the respondent No.1 being the owner and the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the same, are liable to pay the compensation amount to the SCCH 1 37 MVC No.4882/2014 petitioners jointly and severally. However, the respondent No.2 being the insurer, shall indemnify the respondent No.1.
51. So far as awarding interest on the compensation amount is concerned, in a case reported in (2011) 4 SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy), wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Court has to take into account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the present day cost of living and thereby awarded, interest on the compensation amount at 9% p.a. I have no reasons to deviate from the said view of the Apex Court. Accordingly, interest on compensation amount is awarded at 9% p.a.
52. As far as apportioning of compensation amount is concerned, as discussed above, SCCH 1 38 MVC No.4882/2014 petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No.2 is the mother Therefore, the compensation amount has to be apportioned amongst the petitioners in the following manner:-
1) Petitioner No.1 - Father- 50%
2) Petitioner No.2 - Mother- 50% Accordingly, issue No. 3 is answered partly in the affirmative.
53. Issue No.4: In the result I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.89,90,000/- from the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The respondent No.1 being the insurer of the Mini Bus No.KA.52/6289, shall pay the SCCH 1 39 MVC No.4882/2014 compensation amount to the petitioners as stated above within 3 months from the date of this order.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
1) Petitioner No.1 - Father- 50%
2) Petitioner No.2 - Mother- 50% Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioners No.1 and 2, 50% each with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in their respective names in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the respective petitioner's.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on Computer, transaction thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 11th day of December'2015) (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore ANNEXURE SCCH 1 40 MVC No.4882/2014 Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Gopal Prasad Yadav P.W.2 : Murali Radhakrishna Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :Nil Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 Copy of FIR Ex.P-2 Copy of PM Report Ex.P-3 Copy of Mahazar Ex.P-4 Copy of Inquest Mahazar Ex.P-5 Sketch Ex.P-6 IMV Report Ex.P-7 Charge Sheet Ex.P-8 Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card of petr No.1 Ex.P-9 Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card of petr No.2 Ex.P-10 Notarised copy of PAN Card of deceased Ex.P-11 SSLC Marks Card Ex.P-12 PUC Marks Card Ex.P-13 11 Engineering Marks Cards Ex.P-14 Convocation Certificate Ex.P.15 Appointment Letter Ex.P.16 5 Salary Slips Ex.P.17 Form No.16 Ex.P.18 Letter issued by the Company Ex.P.19 Notarised copy of Passport SCCH 1 41 MVC No.4882/2014 Ex.P.20 Authorisation Letter
Documents marked on behalf of the respondent:
Nil (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore