Bangalore District Court
In : 01. Smt.Jayamma vs In : 01. M/S T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & on 3 November, 2022
KABC020179632017
KABC020179662017
KABC020000542018
KABC020000582018
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 03rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
PRESENT: SMT.SHILPA K.S ( BAL, LLB)
VII Addl. SCJ and ACMM,
Member, MACT3, Bengaluru.
(SCCH3) 2 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
M.V.C.No.7318/2017, M.V.C.No.7319/2017
M.V.C.No.34/2018 and M.V.C.No.35/2018
Petitioners in : 01. Smt.Jayamma,
MVC.7318/2017 W/o late Rajegowda,
Aged about 50 years,
02. Kum.Anusha Kumari,
D/o Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 9 years,
03. Master Chethan Kumar Yadav,
S/o Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 08 years,
Since the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are
minors, represented by their
maternal grand mother 1st petitioner
as Natural Guardian.
All are residing at:
Raghavendra, Neraluru,
Hosur Road,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Urban.
(By Sri.A.Sreenivasaiah, Advocate)
Petitioners in : 01. Smt.Jayamma,
MVC.7319/2017 W/o late Rajegowda,
Aged about 50 years,
(SCCH3) 3 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
02. Kum.Anusha Kumari,
D/o Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 9 years,
03. Master Chethan Kumar Yadav,
S/o Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 08 years,
Since the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are
minors, represented by their
maternal grand mother 1st petitioner
as Natural Guardian.
All are residing at:
Raghavendra, Neraluru,
Hosur Road,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Urban.
(By Sri.A.Sreenivasaiah, Advocate)
Petitioners in : 01. Kum.Usha Kumari,
MVC.34/2018 D/o late Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 12 years,
02. Master Rahul Kumar,
S/o late Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 10 years,
03. Master Ravi Kumar,
S/o late Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 07 years,
(SCCH3) 4 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
04. Kum.Anu @ Anusha,
D/o late Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 9 ½ years,
05. Master Chethan @ Ranjith,
S/o late Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 05 years,
06. Sri.Shivpujan Singh,
S/o Devalal Singh,
Aged about 52 years,
07. Smt.Lali Devi,
W/o Shivpujan Singh,
Aged about 50 years,
The petitioners No.1 to 5 are minors,
hence represented by their next friend
grand father namely Shivpujan Singh.
All are R/at Budhan Bigha Village,
Tarar Post, Daudnagar,
Aurangabad District,
Bihar - 824 143.
(By Sri.B.K.Kumara, Advocate)
Petitioners in : 01. Kum.Usha Kumari,
MVC.35/2018 D/o late Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 12 years,
02. Master Rahul Kumar,
S/o late Ashok Kumar Yadav,
(SCCH3) 5 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
Aged about 10 years,
03. Master Ravi Kumar,
S/o late Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 07 years,
04. Kum.Anu @ Anusha,
D/o late Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 9 ½ years,
05. Master Chethan @ Ranjith,
S/o late Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 05 years,
06. Sri.Shivpujan Singh,
S/o Devalal Singh,
Aged about 52 years,
07. Smt.Lali Devi,
W/o Shivpujan Singh,
Aged about 50 years,
The petitioners No.1 to 5 are minors,
hence represented by their next friend
grand father namely Shivpujan Singh.
All are R/at Budhan Bigha Village,
Tarar Post, Daudnagar,
Aurangabad District,
Bihar - 824 143.
(By Sri.B.K.Kumara, Advocate)
Vs
(SCCH3) 6 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
Respondents in : 01. M/s T.V.Sundaram Iyengar &
MVC.7318/17 & Sons Pvt. Ltd.,
MVC.7319/2017 No.9C, 1st Phase,
Jigani Link Road,
Bommasandra Industrial Area,
Bangalore - 560 099.
(By Sri.M.Sathish Kumar,
Advocate)
02. The Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
R.O: No.18, 5th Floor,
Krushi Bhavan,
Hudson Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
Policy No:0902003117P102428260
Validity:11052017 to 10052018
(By Sri.Y.P.Venkatapathi,
Advocate)
03. Kum.Usha Kumari,
D/o late Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 12 years,
04. Master Rahul Kumar,
S/o late Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 10 years,
05. Master Ravi Kumar,
S/o late Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 07 years,
(SCCH3) 7 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
06. Sri.Shivpujan Singh,
S/o Devalal Singh,
Aged about 52 years,
07. Smt.Lali Devi,
W/o Shivpujan Singh,
Aged about 50 years,
All are residing at:
Budhan Bigha Village,
Tarar Post, Daudnagar,
Hosur Road,
Aurangabad District,
Bihar - 824 143.
(By Sri.B.K.Kumara, Advocate for
respondents No.3 to 7)
Respondents in : 01. The Manager,
MVC.34/2018 & United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
MVC.35/2018 5th & 6th Floor, Krushi Bhavan
Building,
Hudson Circle,
Bangalore - 1.
(Insurer of offended vehicle
Tipper Lorry bearing
No.KA51TC20/2008/09)
(By Sri.Y.P.Venkatapathi, Advocate)
(SCCH3) 8 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
02. M/s T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and
Sons Ltd.,
Door No.9C, Jigani Link Road,
Bommasandra Industrial Area,
Bangalore - 560 099.
(RC owner of offended vehicle
Tipper Lorry bearing
No.KA51TC20/2008/09)
(By Sri.M.Sathish Kumar, Advocate)
*******
COMMON JUDGMENT
These four petitions were filed by the motherin
law/mother, minor children, parents and inlaws
U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act 1988 claiming compensation of
Rs.90,00,000/, Rs.40,00,000/, Rs.65,00,000/ and
Rs.25,00,000/ for the death of Sri.Ashok Kumar
Yadav @ Ashok Yadav and Smt.Kavitha Devi @ Kavitha
in the road traffic accident caused on 09.11.2017.
02. Since four petitions arose out of common
accident and respondents are same, they are clubbed
together for the purpose of pronouncing judgment.
The main petition is M.V.C.No.7318/17 and it is
clubbed with M.V.C.No.7319/2017, M.V.C.No.34/2018
and M.V.C.No.35/2018.
(SCCH3) 9 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
03. Further in order to avoid confusion the
parties will be arrayed as under in the body of
judgment:
Petitioner No.1 - Smt.Jayamma
Petitioner No.2 - Anusha Kumari
Petitioner No.3 - Master Chethan Kumar Yadav
Petitioner No.4 - Usha Kumari
Petitioner No.5 - Rahul Kumar
Petitioner No.6 - Ravi Kumar
Petitioner No.7 - Shivpujan Singh
Petitioner No.8 - Smt.Lali Devi
Respondent No.1 - M/s T.V.Sundaram Iyengar &
Sons
Respondent No.2 - The Manager, United India
Insurance company Ltd.,
04. The brief facts in M.V.C.No.7318/2017
are as under:
It is submitted that on 09.11.2027 at about 11.30
a.m when the said Ashok Kumar Yadav @ Ashok Yadav
was riding a Motor Cycle bearing No.
KA51EE5917 along with his wife namely Kavitha
Devi, when they reached near Uturn, Old Chandapura
Gate, Hosur Bengaluru NH07 Road, Attibele, at that
(SCCH3) 10 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
point of time and place, one Lorry bearing No.KA51
TC20 being driven by its driver, at very high speed, in
rash and negligent manner, came in the same
direction, due to excessive speed lost control over his
vehicle and dashed against the Motor Cycle from
behind. Due to this the said Ashok Kumar Yadav @
Ashok Yadav had sustained grievous injuries and died
at the spot itself. Due to death of Ashok Kumar Yadav
@ Ashok Yadav the petitioners being motherinlaw
and minor children have put into untold misery and
mental agony. That the deceased was hale and healthy
prior to accident and was working as employee at Haya
India Pvt. Ltd., and was getting monthly salary of more
than Rs.30,000/ p.m. The accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of Lorry driver. Even a
criminal case is registered against the said Lorry
driver. The respondents No.1 and 2 being owner and
insurer of the said Lorry are jointly and severally liable
to pay the compensation. Hence this petition.
05. The brief facts in M.V.C.No.7319/2017
are as under:
It is submitted that on 09.11.2017 at about 11.30
a.m when the deceased namely Kavitha Devi @ Kavitha
(SCCH3) 11 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
was proceeding on a Motor Bike bearing No.
KA51EE5917 as pillion rider along with her
husband namely Ashok Kumar Yadav @ Ashok Yadav
as rider, when they reached near Uturn, Old
Chandapura Gate, Hosur Bengaluru NH07 Road,
Attibele, at that point of time and place, one Lorry
bearing No.KA51TC20 being driven by its driver, at
very high speed, in rash and negligent manner, came
in the same direction, due to excessive speed lost
control over his vehicle and dashed against the Motor
Cycle. Due to this the said Kavitha Devi @ Kavitha
sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot itself.
Due to death of of said Kavitha Devi @ Kavitha the
petitioners being mother and children are put to
untold misery and mental agony. That the deceased
was hale and healthy prior to accident and was
housewife and doing Tailoring work and was earning
income of more than Rs.15,000/ p.m. The accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Lorry
driver. Even a criminal case is registered against the
said Lorry driver. The respondents No.1 and 2 being
owner and insurer of the said Lorry are jointly and
(SCCH3) 12 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence this
petition.
06. The brief facts in M.V.C.No.34/2018 are
as under:
It is submitted that on 09.11.2017 at about
11.30 a.m when the deceased Ashok Kumar Yadav @
Ashok Yadav was riding Motor Bike bearing No.
KA51EE5917 along with his wife namely Kavitha
Devi @ Kavitha as pillion rider, on Bengaluru Hosur
NH07 Road, near Old Chandapura Gate 'U' turn and
entered into Hosur - Bengaluru NH07 Road, in order
to go to Service Road, to go to home, at that time the
driver of Tipper Lorry bearing No.
KA51TC20/2008/09 drove it at very high speed, in
rash and negligent manner, came from behind and
took immediate 'U' turn and dashed against the Motor
Bike. Due to this the said Ashok Kumar Yadav @
Ashok Yadav fell down along with motor bike and the
wheel of the lorry ran over his head and sustained
grievous injuries and died at the spot itself. Later the
body was shifted to Oxford Medical College and
hospital and the postmortem was conducted. Later the
dead body was handed over to the petitioners.
(SCCH3) 13 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
Thereafter the petitioners have shifted the dead body
in a hired vehicle to their village and performed last
rites by spending Rs.1,10,000/ towards funeral,
transportation and other expenses. Due to death of
Ashok Kumar Yadav @ Ashok Yadav the petitioners
being minor children and parents are put into great
hardship, mental agony and have lost love and
affection of beloved father and son. That the deceased
was hale and healthy prior to accident and was doing
Fitter work at Haya India Pvt. Ltd., and was earning
Rs.30,000/ p.m. The accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of Tipper Lorry driver. Even
a criminal case is registered against the said Tipper
Lorry driver. The respondents No.1 and 2 being
insurer and owner of the said Tipper Lorry are jointly
and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence
this petition.
07. The brief facts in M.V.C.No.35/2018 are
as under:
It is submitted that on 09.11.2017 at about 11.30
a.m when the deceased namely Kavitha Devi @ Kavitha
was proceeding on a Motor Bike bearing No.
KA51EE5917 as pillion rider along with her
(SCCH3) 14 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
husband namely Ashok Kumar Yadav @ Ashok Yadav
on Bengaluru Hosur NH07 Road, near Old
Chandapura Gate 'U' turn and entered into Hosur -
Bengaluru NH07 Road, in order to go to Service Road,
to go to home, at that time the driver of Tipper Lorry
bearing No.KA51TC20/2008/09 drove it at very high
speed, in rash and negligent manner, came from
behind and took immediate 'U' turn and dashed
against the Motor Bike. Due to this the said Kavitha
Devi @ Kavitha fell down along with motor bike and the
wheel of the lorry ran over her head and sustained
grievous injuries and died at the spot itself. Later the
body was shifted to Oxford Medical College and
hospital and the postmortem was conducted. Later the
dead body was handed over to the petitioners.
Thereafter the petitioners have shifted the dead body
in a hired vehicle to their village and performed last
rites by spending Rs.1,10,000/ towards funeral,
transportation and other expenses. Due to death of
Kavitha Devi @ Kavitha the petitioners being minor
children, inlaws are put into great hardship, mental
agony and have lost love and affection of beloved
mother and daughterinlaw. That the deceased was
(SCCH3) 15 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
hale and healthy prior to accident and was housewife
and doing Tailoring work and was earning Rs.12,000/
p.m. The accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of Tipper Lorry driver. Even a
criminal case is registered against the said Tipper
Lorry driver. The respondents No.1 and 2 being insurer
and owner of the said Tipper Lorry are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence this
petition.
08. After service of notice in M.V.C.No.7318/17
and M.V.C.No.7319/2017, the respondents No.1 and 2
have filed written statement. The respondents No.3
to 7 have appeared through their counsel and filed
objections.
09. After service of notice in M.V.C.No.34/2018
and M.V.C.No.35/2018, the respondents No.1 and 2
have appeared through their counsel and filed written
statement.
10. The averments of the written statement of
M/s T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons the respondent
No.1 in all cases are as under:
This respondent is the owner of tipper lorry
bearing No.KA51TC20200809. The said vehicle is
(SCCH3) 16 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
duly insured with the respondent No.2 which is valid
from 11.05.2017 to 10.05.2018. It is denied that the
deceased namely Ashok Kumar and Kavitha Devi have
sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent
driving of the lorry driver. The accident took place due
to the negligence act of the rider of motorcycle only.
The rider of the motorcycle was not holding valid
driving licence on the date of accident. It is false that
due to the death of the deceased the petitioners who
are the parents, inlaws and minor children have put
into hardship and lost financial assistance. It is denied
that the deceased prior to the accident were having
income and due to their death the petitioners have lost
income. The claim of the petitioners are excessive. If at
all the court comes to the conclusion that the
petitioners are entitled to get compensation then the
insurance company/respondent No.2 are liable to pay
and hence prays to dismiss all petitions with costs.
11. The averments of the written statement of
Manager, United India Insurance company the
respondent No.2 in all cases are as under:
There are many variations in the petitions filed by
the petitioners. This respondent have insured the lorry
(SCCH3) 17 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
bearing No.KA51TC20/200809 but liability is
subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is
denied that the petitioners are the legal heirs and
dependents of the deceased. It is denied that the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving
of the lorry driver bearing No.KA51TC20/200809.
But the accident took place due to the negligence of
the rider of motorcycle/ deceased. That the lorry driver
and the rider of motorcycle were not holding valid
driving licence on the date of accident. The lorry was
not duly registered and has been plied on road without
registration certificate or trade certificate or permit.
Hence the R.C owner have violated the terms of the
policy. It is denied that the deceased were having
income and due to their death the petitioners have lost
financial assistance. The claim of the petitioners is
excessive. Hence this respondent are not liable to pay
compensation and prays to dismiss all petitions with
costs.
12. The averments of the objections of
respondents No.3 to 7 in M.V.C.No.7318/17 and
M.V.C.No.7319/17 are as under:
(SCCH3) 18 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
These respondents have filed seperate petitions in
M.V.C.No.34/2018 and M.V.C.No.35/2018 claiming
compensation. The motherinlaw of deceased Ashok
kumar is not necessary party as she is not the legal
heir of deceased Ashok Kumar. Hence they have
sought permission to prosecute the M.V.C.No.34/2018
and M.V.C.No.35/2018 seperately.
13. In order to prove the case, the petitioner
No.1 in M.V,C.No.7318/17 and M.V.C.No.7319/17 got
examined herself as Pw.1 and 2 and another witness
as Pw.3 and got marked 34 documents as Ex.P.1 to 34
and closed their side. Likewise the petitioner No.6 in
M.V.C.No.34/2018 and M.V.C.35/2018 got examined
himself as PW.1 and got marked 25 documents as
Ex.P.1 to 25 and closed their side.
14. By way of rebuttal, the General Manager of
the M/S T.V.Sundaram Iyengar/respondent No.1 in
M.V.C.No.7318/17 and M.V.C.No.7319/2017 got
examined himself as Rw.1 and got marked 2
documents as Ex.R.1 and 2 and closed their side.
Likewise the General Manager of the M/S
T.V.Sundaram Iyengar/respondent No.1 in
(SCCH3) 19 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
M.V.C.No.34/2018 and M.V.C.No.35/2018 got
examined himself as Rw.1 and closed their side.
15. Heard arguments from both sides in all
petitions. The M/s T.V Sundaram & Sons/respondent
No.1 have filed written arguments.
16. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the
following issues have been framed by my learned
predecessor:
ISSUES IN M.V.C.No.7318/2017
1. Whether petitioners prove that they along
with respondent No.3 to 7 are the
LRs/dependents of deceased Sri.Ashok
Kumar Yadav?
2. Whether petitioners prove that deceased
Sri.Ashok Kumar Yadav died in RTA arising
out of the accident alleged to have been
taken place on 09112017 at about 11.30
a.m. near 'U' turn on Chandapur Gate,
Hosur - Bengaluru NH7 Road, due to
negligent act of driver of Lorry bearing reg.
No.KA51TC20 as alleged in the petition?
3. Whether petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, what amount and
from whom?
(SCCH3) 20 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
4. What Order or Award?
ISSUES IN M.V.C.No.7319/2017
1. Whether petitioners prove that they along
with respondent No.3 to 7 are the
LRs/dependents of deceased Smt.Kavitha
Devi?
2. Whether petitioners prove that deceased
Smt.Kavitha Devi died in RTA arising out of
the accident alleged to have been taken
place on 09112017 at about 11.30 a.m.
near 'U' turn on Chandapur Gate, Hosur -
Bengaluru NH7 Road, due to negligent act
of driver of Lorry bearing reg. No.
KA51TC20 as alleged in the petition?
3. Whether petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, what amount and
from whom?
4. What Order or Award?
ISSUES IN M.V.C.No.34/2018
1.Whether the petitioners prove that
Sri.Ashok Kumar Yadav @ Ashok Yadav died
due to injuries sustained by him in a motor
vehicle accident that was taken place on
09112017 at about 11.30 a.m. near 'U' turn,
(SCCH3) 21 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
Old Chandapura Gate, Hosur, Bengaluru,
involving Tipper Lorry bearing reg.
No.KA51TC20/2008/09 belonging to
respondent No.2 and the said vehicle insured
with first respondent?
2.Whether the petitioners prove that, the
accident has mainly occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the said
vehicle?
3.Whether the petitioners prove that, they
are the only legal heirs and dependents of
deceased?
4.Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as prayed for? If so, at what
rate, from whom?
5.What Order or Award?
ISSUES IN M.V.C.No.35/2018
1.Whether the petitioners prove that
Smt.Kavitha Devi @ Kavitha W/o late Ashok
Kumar Yadav @ Ashok Yadav died due to
injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle
accident that was taken place on 09112017
at about 11.30 a.m. near 'U' turn, Old
Chandapura Gate, Hosur, Bengaluru,
involving Tipper Lorry bearing reg.
(SCCH3) 22 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
No.KA51TC20/2008/09 belonging to
respondent No.2 and the said vehicle insured
with first respondent?
2.Whether the petitioners prove that, the
accident has mainly occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the said
vehicle?
3.Whether the petitioners prove that, they
are the only legal heirs and dependents of
deceased?
4.Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as prayed for? If so, at what
rate, from whom?
5.What Order or Award?
17. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as
under:
ISSUES IN M.V.C.No.7318/2017
Issue No.1 : In Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In partly Affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order
for the following:
(SCCH3) 23 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
ISSUES IN M.V.C.No.7319/2017
Issue No.1 : In Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In partly Affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order
for the following:
ISSUES IN M.V.C.No.34/2018
Issue No.1 : In Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In Affirmative
Issue No.4 : In partly Affirmative
Issue No.5 : As per final order
for the following:
ISSUES IN M.V.C.No.35/2018
Issue No.1 : In Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In Affirmative
Issue No.4 : In partly Affirmative
Issue No.5 : As per final order
for the following:
(SCCH3) 24 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
REASONS
18. Issues No.1 and 2 in M.V.C.No.
7318/2017, issues No.1 and 2 in M.V.C.No.
7319/2017, issues No.1 to 3 in M.V.C.No.34/2018
and issues No.1 to 3 in M.V.C.No.35/2018: These
issues are taken at one stretch for my consideration in
order to avoid repetition of facts as they are inter
related with each other.
19. These petitions were filed claiming
compensation for the death of Ashok Kumar Yadav @
Ashok Yadav and Kavitha Devi @ Kavitha in the road
traffic accident caused on 09.11.2017 due to the rash
and negligent driving of driver of the Tipper Lorry
bearing No.KA51TC20/2008/09. The same was
opposed by the respondents No.1 and 2 in all petitions
stating that the accident did not occurred due to the
negligence of the Tipper Lorry driver but it was
occurred due to the negligence of deceased Ashok
Kumar Yadav @ Ashok Yadav who was riding the
motor bike in rash and negligent manner and hence
they are not liable to pay compensation as claimed by
(SCCH3) 25 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
the petitioners. Further the respondent No.2 the
insurance company have contended that they are not
liable to pay compensation as the respondent
No.1/R.C owner have permit to ply the lorry on public
road without valid permit, registration and driving
licence.
20. In order to prove this, the petitioner No.1
in M.V.C.No.7318/17 and M.V.C.No.7319/2017 was
got examined herself as Pw.1 and 2 by reiterating all
the averments of the petitions in her affidavit. The
Pw.1 and 2 in her crossexamination admitted that " I
am aged 53 years now. I am not doing any work for
gain. Deceased Ashok Kumar is my soninlaw.
Deceased Kavitha Devi is my daughter. Deceased Ashok
Kumar and Kavitha Devi residing at Neraluru. I was
also residing with them since 08 years at Neraluru. I
have not seen the accident. I do not know who has
given complaint. We have conducted the last rituals of
deceased Ashok Kumar. Complainant Shivalingegowda
is also my soninlaw. I have not produced salary slip to
show that deceased Ashok Kumar was earning
Rs.30,000/ per month. That my daughter's marriage
was love marriage. That the motorcycle which was
(SCCH3) 26 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
riding by my soninlaw belongs to him". Further the
Pw.1 and 2 had denied all other suggestions of the
respondents No.1 and 2 counsel. The Pw.1 had not
seen the accident. She had deposed based on the
available documents on record.
21. Further the petitioner No.6 in
M.V.C.No.34/18 and M.V.C.No.35/2018 in order to
prove the case was got examined himself as Pw.1 by
reiterating all the averments of the petition in his
affidavit. The Pw.1 in his crossexamination admitted
that "I am residing in Budhan Bigha village in Bihar
state. It is true that Ex.P.11 is not issued by Bihar
Government but by Karnataka Government. Now I am
55 years. It is true that I have not produced school
records in respect of these petitioners. I am doing
agriculture. I have three sons and one daughter among
them two sons are no more. It is true that I do not
know from where to where deceased along with kavitha
were going on the date of accident, but I know that
they were going towards Bazar. I was not residing with
Ashok Kumar at Bengaluru. It is true that I am not eye
witness to the accident. I have not seen the place of
accident. No eye witness has explained me how this
(SCCH3) 27 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
accident took place, but my son Manoj Yadav has told
me about the accident. It is true that I have not
produced any documents to show that Kavitha Devi
was earning Rs.12,000/ per month by doing tailoring
work. It is true that my son was married twice ".
Further the Pw.1 had denied all other suggestions of
the respondents No.1 and 2 counsel. The Pw.1 had not
seen the accident. He had deposed based on the
available documents on record.
22. Further the Pw.1 and 2 in
M.V.C.No.7318/17 and M.V.C.No.7319/2017 and
Pw.1 in M.V.C.34/2018 and M.V.C.35/2018 in
support of the case got marked entire police
documents as per Ex.P.1 to 7, 13, 14 and Ex.P.1 to 10
and 24. It is clear that these police records are one and
the same and it is with respect to one crime number
registered based upon the complaint lodged by one
Shivalingegowda. So on perusal of these documents it
is clear that the concerned I.O after investigation have
filed Charge sheet against the driver of Tipper Lorry for
the alleged offences punishable U/s 279, 304(a) of IPC.
Even the concerned I.O have stated that the aforesaid
Ashok Kumar and Kavitha Devi have died due to
(SCCH3) 28 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
accidental injuries caused due to the rash and
negligent act of Tipper Lorry driver only.
23. Even the case of the petitioners are
supported by the spot mahazar, sketch, IMV report,
P.M report and chargesheet to believe that the accident
took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the
lorry driver and even the aforesaid Ashok Kumar and
Kavitha Devi have died at the spot itself.
24. Per contra, the M/s T.V Sundaram & Sons/
respondent No.1 in all cases have got examined its
General Manager Sales as Rw.1 by reiterating all the
averments of the written statement in his affidavit. In
his crossexamination the Rw.1 has admitted that "I
am aware that the lorry bearing No.KA51Tc20 was
driven by Jaison Thomas. It is true that the aforesaid
lorry driver due to his negligence driving he dashed to
the hind portion of the vehicle. It is true that after
investigation the concerned I.O has filed chargesheet
against the lorry driver. The witness volunteers that
there is no negligence on part of lorry driver and he
was holding valid driving licence and insurance policy.
It is true that we have not lodged any complaint before
any authority regarding there is no negligence of lorry
(SCCH3) 29 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
driver. It is true that the police have issued notice U/s
133 of IMV Act and we have replied to it. It is true that
I have not seen the accident. I cannot say the vehicle
registration number as it is not yet registered. It is
true that as on the date of accident our vehicle was not
registered. It is true that whenever the vehicle is
handed over till registration temporary number will be
allotted. That in order to purchase new vehicle we will
issue invoice in the name of customer. It is true that
we have obtained insurance policy from the respondent
No.2. It is true that there is no vehicle number in the
said insurance policy as only trade certificate number
will be mentioned. As per Ex.R.1 the trade certificate
will expire on 29.03.2010. The witness volunteers that
it is renewed every year and it is valid at the time of
accident. It is true that Ex.R.1 is not issued with
respect to the offending vehicle. The trade certificate
will not be issued with respect to one particular vehicle
number. It is true that Ex.R.1 is issued permitting us
to do trade. As per Ex.R.1 it cannot be noticed that
vehicle bearing No.KA51TC20 was delivered, because
the trade certificate will be issued by RTO to the
company for movement of vehicle from yard to
(SCCH3) 30 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
dealership and dealers to RTO and other branches. The
policy in question is covered within our company
premises i.e from RTO to dealership and other
branches. It is true that the said insurance policy is
valid till the vehicle is temporarily registered in the
name of the customer. It is true that at the time of
accident the driver was under our command. That no
damage was caused to our vehicle apart from minor
scratches. We have not challenged the chargesheet
filed against lorry driver".
25. The Rw.1 in both cases had denied all the
suggestions of the petitioner and respondent No.2
counsel. The Rw.1 has clearly stated that they have
obtained the insurance policy and it was valid on the
date of accident. The accident took place due to the
negligence of the lorry driver. As the lorry was not
registered but duly covered on the date of accident the
insurance company are liable to indemnify them.
26. The Rw.1 has got marked 2 documents in
M.V.C.7318/2017 and M.V.C.7319/2017 as Ex.R.1
and 2. The insurance company have highly objected
these documents. The Ex.R.1 and 2 are the copies of
trade certificates. On perusal of these trade certificates
(SCCH3) 31 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
it is clear that as per Ex.R.1 it will expired on
29.03.2010. So when it suggested by the respondent
No.2 later the Ex.R.2 was got marked wherein it is
noticed that the trade certificate was renewed from
12.05.2017 till 11.05.2020. Hence the respondent No.2
have contended that the Ex.R.2 is created in order to
escape from the liability of the respondent No.1. It is
true that initially the Ex.R.2 was not produced and
later the back portion of the Ex.R.2 was got entered
and produced the same before this court. So merely
got entry of the back portion of the Ex.R.2 does not
mean that the entire Ex.R.2 was got created later
because the said entry is made by the RTO.
Chandapura a Government body. Hence any act done
by the Government body shall be presumed as genuine
only unless it is rebutted. The RW.1 might got entered
the back portion of the Ex.R.2 when it is brought to his
notice during the course of cross examination. But
merely got entry in back portion of the Ex.R.2 at a later
stage does not mean that the Ex.R.2 was created. So
as per Ex.R.2 it is true that on the date of accident the
trade certificate is valid.
(SCCH3) 32 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
27. Therefore it is clear that the respondent
No.1 have admitted that the accident took place due to
the negligence of the lorry driver and even they have
not challenged the chargesheet filed against the said
driver. Further as per the Ex.R.2 the trade certificate
was issued in order to carry business by the
respondent No.1 which is also inclusive of the
offending vehicle. As per Ex.R.2 the trade certificate for
the offending vehicle was valid and in force. The said
trade certificate was renewed periodically and hence
the offending vehicle has permit to ply on public road.
The said trade certificate covers permit, fitness
certificate also. So it is rightly contended by the
respondent No.1 that the chasis and Engine number
mentioned in the insurance policy issued by the
respondent No.1 tally with the form No.19. So even the
concerned I.O after investigation has not invoked any
of the provisions coming under IMV Act. Hence it is
clear that on the date of accident the offending vehicle
has valid T.C, permit, fitness certificate. Even the
offending lorry driver has valid driving licence.
28. Eventhough the respondents No.2 have
denied the manner of accident and contended that the
(SCCH3) 33 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
accident took place due to the negligence of the
deceased/rider of motorcycle, but to prove this they
have not adduced any supportive oral and
documentary evidence on their behalf.
29. Hence with the available police records and
in absence of any other rebuttal documents the
petitioners have proved that the lorry driver due to his
rash and negligent driving had caused the accident,
wherein the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle
have sustained injuries and died at the spot itself.
30. Further the petitioners in
M.V.C.No.7318/17 and M.V.C.No.7319/2017 in order
to prove that they are the legal heirs and dependents of
the deceased have produced Notarized copies of
Aadhaar cards of themselves and deceased Ashok
Kumar Yadav @ Ashok Yadav and Kavitha Devi @
Kavitha, Ration Card, Voter ID cards and driving
licence of deceased Ashok Kumar Yadav @ Ashok
Yadav as per Ex.P.8 to 12, 15, 18 to 23. So on perusal
of these documents it is clear that the petitioners in
M.V.C.No.7318/17 and M.V.C.No.7319/2017 are the
children, motherinlaw and mother of the deceased
Ashok Kumar Yadav @ Ashok Yadav and Kavitha Devi
(SCCH3) 34 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
@ Kavitha. The respondents have contended that the
petitioner No.1 namely Jayamma who is the mother of
late Kavitha Devi and motherinlaw of late Ashok
Kumar is not entitled for the compensation granted for
the death of Ashok Kumar. But from the available
documents on record it is clear that the motherinlaw
was living along with deceased Ashok Kumar. Hence as
on the date of accident the motherinlaw namely
Jayamma of deceased Ashok Kumar was living with
him. Even the inlaws in M.V.C.No.34/18 and
M.V.C.No.35/2018 have claimed compensation for the
death of their daughterinlaw namely Kavitha Devi.
But it is true that the inlaws of late Kavitha Devi were
not residing with her. But merely they are not residing
with the deceased does not disentitled from claiming
compensation for the death of their daughterinlaw.
31. It is true and admitted that the deceased
Kavitha Devi is the second wife of the deceased Ashok
Kumar. The first wife of deceased Ashok Kumar is no
more but he has children who are the respondents
No.3 to 5 in M.V.C.7318/2017 and M.V.C.7319/2017.
The said deceased Ashok Kumar after marrying for
second time with deceased Kavitha Devi have children
(SCCH3) 35 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
who are the petitioners No.2 and 3 in
M.V.C.7318/2017 and M.V.C.7319/2017. It is true
and admitted that the children of first wife of deceased
Ashok Kumar are with his parents. The children of
second wife of deceased Ashok Kumar are with his
motherinlaw. Even as per the recent settled
principles of law even the inlaws and step children are
also entitled to claim compensation for the death of
their soninlaw, daughterinlaw, step parents. The
ground of having other son to the petitioner No.6
namely Shiv Pujan Singh and other children of
petitioner No.1 namely Smt.Jayamma does not bar
them from claiming compensation. Hence the
petitioners in M.V.C.No.7318/17 and M.V.C.No.
7319/2017 being the children, mother/inlaw/mother
of late Ashok Kumar and Kavitha Devi are also entitled
to claim compensation for the death of their parents,
soninlaw and daughter in the road traffic accident.
32. Further the petitioners in M.V.C.No.34/18
and M.V.C.No.35/2018 have produced and got marked
the driving licence of deceased Ashok Kumar Yadav @
Ashok Yadav, notarised copy of aadhar card of
themselves and deceased, election identity card, health
(SCCH3) 36 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
insurance policy, employment identity card, ration
card as per Ex.P.11 to 22 and 25. Hence from these
documents it is clear that the petitioners in
M.V.C.No.34/18 and M.V.C.No.35/18 being the
children and parents of late Ashok Kumar and inlaws,
step children of the deceased Kavitha Devi @ Kavitha
are entitled to claim compensation for the death
occurred in the road traffic accident.
33. Hence the petitioners in all cases have
proved that the accident took place due to the rash
and negligent driving of the Tipper Lorry driver.
Further they have proved that they being the legal
heirs and dependents of the deceased are entitled to
claim compensation for the death of deceased persons
who have died due to the accidental injuries. Hence I
answered the issues No.1 and 2 in M.V.C.No.
7318/2017 in affirmative, issues No.1 and 2 in
M.V.C.No.7319/2017 in affirmative, issues No.1
to 3 in M.V.C.No.34/2018 in affirmative and issues
No.1 to 3 in M.V.C.No.35/2018 in affirmative.
34. Issue No.3 in MVC.No.7318/17, issue
No.3 in MVC.No.7319/2017, issue No.4 in M.V.C.
(SCCH3) 37 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
No.34/2018 and issue No.4 in M.V.C.No.35/2018:
These issues are taken at one stretch for my
consideration in order to avoid repetition of facts as
they are inter related with each other.
35. These petitions were filed by the petitioners
to claim compensation for the death of both Ashok
Kumar and Kavitha Devi. According to the petitioners
who are the children, parents, inlaws and step
children of both Ashok Kumar and Kavitha Devi the
deceased are the only bread earner to the family. Due
to the their death the petitioners have lost source of
income, love and affection. Even the petitioners are put
into hardship.
36. Hence the petitioners who are the children,
parents and motherinlaw of deceased Ashok Kumar
are entitled for the following compensation as under:
a. Loss of Dependency: The petitioners
claimed that deceased Ashok Kumar Yadav @ Ashok
Yadav was aged 43 years as on the date of accident. To
prove the age, they have produced copy of Aadhaar
card, Voter ID card, driving licence, R.C car, as per
Ex.P.9, 19, 21 to 25 in M.V.C.7318/17 and
M.V.C.7319/2017. Further the petitioners in
(SCCH3) 38 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
M.V.C.34/2018 and M.V.C.35/2018 have got marked
the notarized copy of aadhar card, election identity
card, health insurance policy, driving licence,
employment card of deceased Ashok Kumar as per
Ex.P.17 to 21. So as per these documents it is noticed
that the deceased Ashok Kumar was born on
01021974. The date of accident is 09.11.2017. So,
considering the above documents, as on the date of
accident the age of the deceased Ashok Kumar would
be 43 years. Even it is well supported by Post mortem
report marked as Ex.P.6. Hence the age of deceased
Ashok Kumar will be considered as 43 years at the
time of his death for the purpose of calculating the
compensation. As per Sarla Varma and others Vs
Delhi Transport Corporation and others case
reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the proper applicable
multiplier is "14" and the same is considered.
Further the petitioners have stated that the
deceased was doing Fitter work at Haya India Pvt. Ltd.,
and was earning Rs.30,000/ p.m. In order to prove
the income of the deceased, the petitioners in
M.V.C.7318/2017 and M.V.C.7319/2017 have got
(SCCH3) 39 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
examined the witness as Pw.3 who had stated that the
deceased Ashok Kumar was working as fitter and
drawing gross salary of Rs.29,828/ p.m. The Pw.3 had
got marked copies of employee, personal details, letter
of probation, letter of confirmation, salary revised
letter, attendance register, muster roll, Pay slip, salary
breakup and service certificate of the deceased as per
Ex.P.26 to 34.
The Pw.3 in his cross examination has admitted
that "The Axis bank shown in Ex.P.26 is pertaining to
bank account of the deceased Ashok Kumar Yadav to
which the salary was credited, but it may be changed
to HDFC or other banks later on. The Ex.P.27 is a
certificate showing that deceased was on probation
period in the year 2010. It is true that Ex.P.28 does
not shown the salary details. The Ex.P.29 is not related
to Ex.P.27 or 28. It is true that Ex.P.29 the salary of
the deceased was revised for Rs.13,262/. It is true
that the salary shown in Ex.P.32 for the month August,
September and October 2017 is not reflected in
Ex.P.27. It is true that Ex.P.33 is not supported by
other documents and it is not issued by any employee.
It is true that Ex.P.34 is issued to affirm Ex.P.33. It is
(SCCH3) 40 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
true that I have not produced the bank account
statement to show that the salary to the employee was
credited to their bank account".
So even as per Employment ID card and
passbook of the deceased as per Ex.P.21 and 25 it
shows that a sum of Rs.17,761/, Rs.19,960/,
19,296/ per month has been credited to the account
of the deceased from his employer. Hence as rightly
stated by the respondents there is no fixed or
ascertained income of the deceased. But as per
Ex.P.24 to 34 it is noticed that the deceased Ashok
Kumar Yadav was working as fitter and his work was
confirmed also. Even it is clear that the deceased
Ashok Kumar had obtained salary of Rs.13,262/ for
the month of August 2011 as per Ex.P.29. It is true
that there are some variation in the documents
produced by the PW.3. But it is not fatal to the case of
the petitioners. Those minor variations will not hold
the contention of the respondents that the deceased
Ashok Kumar was not at all working as fitter. Hence
under these circumstances it is just and proper to
consider the last drawn salary of the deceased as per
Ex.P.32 which comes to Rs.26,941/ per month.
(SCCH3) 41 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
Since the deceased Ashok Kumar has left his
minor children, parents and motherinlaw who comes
to eight dependents and as per Sarla Varma and
others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and others
case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 if the dependents are
exceeding 6, then personal deduction is to be 1/5 th.
Hence, in this case 1/5th deduction has to be done
towards personal expenses. So, after deduction of 1/5 th
(Rs.5,388/), then the income comes to Rs.21,553/.
As above stated that apart from the deceased
there are no one to look after the petitioners. As per
recent Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in AIR 2017 SC 5157 National Insurance company
Ltd Vs Pranay Sethi and others and Hem Raj Vs
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and others
reported in 2018 ACJ 5 cases the deceased is aged
about 43 years at the time of his death and he comes
in between the age group of 40 to 50 years and self
employed and hence the petitioners are entitled for
future prospects. Therefore, under these
circumstances, it is just and proper to add 30%
(Rs.6,465/) towards future prospects, then the total
(SCCH3) 42 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
income comes to Rs.28,018/ p.m for calculating the
compensation. Hence the petitioners who includes
children, parents and motherinlaw of deceased
Ashok Kumar are entitled for Rs.28,018 x 12 x 14 =
Rs.47,07,024/ under this head.
b) Loss of estate and funeral expenses:
Since it is settled law in National Insurance
Company Ltd., Vs Pranay Sethi and others case in
AIR 2017 SC 5157 that the dependents would be
entitled for loss of estate to the extent of
Rs.15,000/ and funeral expenses to the extent of
Rs.15,000/, as such I award the same.
c) Loss of consortium: In this case the
petitioners No.2 to 8 being the children and parents of
the deceased Ashok Kumar are entitled for
Rs.40,000/ each towards parental consortium and
filial consortium as per Judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors case and
Magma General Insurance Company case in (2018)
18 SCC 130. Hence I award the same. But the
(SCCH3) 43 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
petitioner No.1 namely Smt.Jayamma is not entitled
for the parental and filial consortium as she is the
motherinlaw of the deceased Ashok Kumar.
37. Thus the petitioners who are the children,
parents and motherinlaw of the deceased Ashok
Kumar are entitled for compensation under the
following heads:
1.Loss of dependency Rs.47,07,024/
2.Loss of estate Rs.15,000/
3.Towards parental and filial Rs.2,80,000/
consortium (for petitioners No.2
to 8 excluding the petitioner
No.1 namely Smt.Jayamma)
4.Transportation of dead body Rs.15,000/
and funeral expenses
Total Rs.50,17,024/
38. According to the petitioners who are the
children, step children, mother and inlaws of the
deceased Kavitha Devi @ Kavitha was the bread earner
to the family. Due to her death the petitioners have
lost source of income, love and affection. Even the
petitioners are put into hardship.
(SCCH3) 44 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
39. Hence the petitioners who are children, step
children, mother and inlaws of the deceased Kavitha
Devi are entitled for the following compensation as
under:
a. Loss of Dependency: In this case the
petitioners claimed that deceased Kavitha Devi @
Kavitha was aged 30 years as on the date of accident.
To prove the her age, they have produced copy of
Aadhaar card as per Ex.P.15. So as per this document
it is noticed that the deceased Kavitha Devi was born
on 10021987. The date of accident is 09.11.2017. So,
considering the Ex.P.15, as on the date of accident the
age of the deceased would be 31 years and the same is
considered for calculating the compensation. As per
Sarla Varma and others Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation and others case reported in 2009 ACJ
1298, the proper applicable multiplier is "16" and the
same is considered.
Further the petitioners have stated that the
deceased was doing Tailoring work and was earning
more than Rs.15,000/ p.m. In order to prove the
income of the deceased, the petitioners have not
produced any documents. Hence, in the absence of
(SCCH3) 45 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
such documents, it is just and proper to consider the
notional income of the deceased. The date of accident
is in the year 2017 and the income for the said year is
Rs.11,000/ per month.
Since the deceased Kavitha Devi has left eight
dependents and as per Sarla Varma and others Vs
Delhi Transport Corporation and others case
reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 if the dependents are
exceeding 6, then personal deduction is to be 1/5 th.
Hence, in this case 1/5th deduction has to be done
towards personal expenses. So, after deduction of
1/5th (Rs.2,200/), then the income comes to
Rs.8,800/.
As above stated that apart from the deceased
there are no one to look after the petitioners. As per
recent Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in AIR 2017 SC 5157 National Insurance company
Ltd Vs Pranay Sethi and others and Hem Raj Vs
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and others
reported in 2018 ACJ 5 cases the deceased is aged
about 31 years at the time of her death and she comes
below the age of 40 years and self employed and hence
(SCCH3) 46 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
the petitioners are entitled for future prospects.
Therefore, under these circumstances, it is just and
proper to add 40% (Rs.3,520/) towards future
prospects, then the total income comes to Rs.12,320/
p.m for calculating the compensation. Hence the
petitioners are entitled for Rs.12,320 x 12 x 16 =
Rs.23,65,440/ under this head.
b) Loss of estate and funeral expenses:
Since it is settled law in National Insurance
Company Ltd., Vs Pranay Sethi and others case in
AIR 2017 SC 5157 that the dependents would be
entitled for loss of estate to the extent of
Rs.15,000/ and funeral expenses to the extent of
Rs.15,000/, as such I award the same.
c) Loss of consortium: In this case the
petitioners No.1 to 6 who are children, step children
and mother of the deceased Kavitha Devi are entitled
for Rs.40,000/ each towards parental consortium
and filial consortium as per Judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors case and
Magma General Insurance Company case in (2018)
(SCCH3) 47 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
18 SCC 130. Hence I award the same. But the
petitioner No.7 namely Shiv Pujan Singh and
petitioner No.8 namely Smt.Lali Devi being the inlaws
of the deceased Kavitha Devi are not entitled for the
parental and filial consortium as they are inlaws of
the deceased Kavitha Devi.
40. Thus the petitioners who are the children,
step children, mother and inlaws of the deceased
Kavitha Devi are entitled for compensation under the
following heads:
1.Loss of dependency Rs.23,65,440/
2.Loss of estate Rs.15,000/
3.Towards parental and filial Rs.2,40,000/
consortium (for petitioners No.1
to 6 excluding the petitioner
No.7 and 8 the inlaws of
deceased Kavitha Devi )
4.Transportation of dead body Rs.15,000/
and funeral expenses
Total Rs.26,35,440/
41. Regarding liability: The respondent No.2
eventhough contend that the offending vehicle has no
valid permit, fitness certificate and not registered. But
(SCCH3) 48 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
they have not produced any documents in this regard.
Hence in view of my above finding the petitioners have
clearly established that the accident took place due to
the negligence of the lorry driver. The said lorry is
owned by respondent No.1 and duly insured with the
respondent No.2 at the time of accident. Hence both
respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable
to pay compensation to the petitioners.
42. Issue No.4 in MVC.No.7318/17, issue
No.4 in MVC.No.7319/2017, issue No.5 in
M.V.C.No.34/2018 and issue No.5 in
M.V.C.No.35/2018: These issues are taken at one
stretch for my consideration in order to avoid
repetition of facts as they are inter related with each
other.
43. With regard to the apportionment the
petitioners No.2 to 6 being the children of deceased
Ashok Kumar and children/step children of deceased
Kavitha Devi are equally entitled for 14% each of the
compensation awarded. The petitioners No.1, 7 and 8
being the parents/inlaws, mother/ motherinlaw of
deceased Ashok Kumar and Kavitha Devi are entitled
for 10% each of the compensation awarded.
(SCCH3) 49 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
44. In view of my findings on above issues and
with regard to awarding the interest is concerned, the
petitioners are entitled for simple interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. As
such I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The claim petition filed by the petitioners in M.V.C.No.7318/2017, M.V.C.No.7319/2017, M.V.C. No.34/2018 and M.V.C.35/2018 U/Sec.166 of the M.V. Act are hereby allowed in part, with costs.
The petitioners No.1 to 8 are entitled for Rs.50,17,024/ (Fifty lakhs seventeen thousand and twenty four only) as compensation with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition till the date of deposit for the death of Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kumar Yadav.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. However, in view of valid insurance policy, respondent No.2 Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded amount with interest and shall (SCCH3) 50 M.V.C.No.7318/2017 c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017, MVC.No.34/2018, MVC.No.35/2018 deposit the same within time stipulated under section 168(3) of M.V. Act.
On deposit of the compensation amount with interest, the share amount of petitioners No.2 to 6 along with interest accrued, entire amount shall be deposited as FD in any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice till they attains age of majority. However, the petitioner No.6 namely Shiv Pujan Singh is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on the deposit amount from time to time and to make use for the welfare and benefit of the minor petitioners No.2 to 6.
Out of the share amount of the petitioners No.1, 7 and 8 along with interest accrued, entire amount shall be released in their favour through Epayment on proper identification without any further proceedings.
The petitioners No.1 to 8 are entitled for Rs.26,35,440/ (Twenty six lakhs thirty five thousand four hundred and forty only) as compensation with interest at 6% p.a from the date of (SCCH3) 51 M.V.C.No.7318/2017 c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017, MVC.No.34/2018, MVC.No.35/2018 petition till the date of deposit for the death of Kavitha @ Kavitha Devi.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. However, in view of valid insurance policy, respondent No.2 Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded amount with interest and shall deposit the same within time stipulated under section 168(3) of M.V. Act.
On deposit of the compensation amount with interest, the share amount of petitioners No.2 to 6 along with interest accrued, entire amount shall be deposited as FD in any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice till they attains age of majority. However, the petitioner No.1 namely Smt.Jayamma is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on the deposit amount from time to time and to make use for the welfare and benefit of the minor petitioners No.2 to 6.
Out of the share amount of the petitioners No.1, 7 and 8 along with interest accrued, entire amount shall be released in their favour through Epayment (SCCH3) 52 M.V.C.No.7318/2017 c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017, MVC.No.34/2018, MVC.No.35/2018 on proper identification without any further proceedings.
The advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,00000 each. Draw award accordingly.
The original Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No. 7318/2017 and copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.7319/2017, M.V.C.34/2018 and M.V.C.35/2018.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, then corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 03rd day of November 2022).
(SHILPA.K.S) VII Addl. Judge and ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the petitioners in MVC.7318/2017 & M.V.C.7319/2017:
P.W.1 Smt.Jayamma
P.W.2 Smt.Jayamma
P.W.3 Murli M.S
(SCCH3) 53 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
List of documents marked on behalf of the
petitioners in MVC.7318/2017 &
M.V.C.7319/2017:
Ex.P.1 Copy of complaint
Ex.P.2 Copy of FIR
Ex.P.3 Copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4 Copy of IMV report
Ex.P.5 Copy of Inquest report
Ex.P.6 Copy of post mortem report
Ex.P.7 Copy of chargesheet
Ex.P.8 Copy of Genealogical tree
Ex.P.9 to Notarised copy of aadhar cards of 12 petitioners No.1 to 3 Ex.P.13 Copy of Inquest report Ex.P.14 Copy of Post mortem report Ex.P.15 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of deceased Ex.P.16 Notarised copy of study certificate of petitioner No.2 Ex.P.17 Notarized copy of study certificate of petitioner No.3 Ex.P.18 Notarized copy of ration card Ex.P.19 Notarised copy of election identity card of deceased Ashok Kumar Ex.P.20 Notarized copy of election identity card of deceased Kavitha Ex.P.21 Notarized copy of identity card issued by Hyva company Ex.P.22 Notarized copy of R.C of deceased Ex.P.23 Notarised copy of DL of deceased Ex.P.24 Notarized copy of ESI card issued to deceased Ex.P.25 Notarized copy of pass book of deceased Ex.P.26 Notarised copy of employee personal details (SCCH3) 54 M.V.C.No.7318/2017 c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017, MVC.No.34/2018, MVC.No.35/2018 Ex.P.27 Notarized copy of letter of probation Ex.P.28 Notarized copy of confirmation letter Ex.P.29 Notarized copy of salary revised letter Ex.P.30 Notarized copy of attendence register Ex.P.31 Notarized copy of muster roll Ex.P.32 Pay slip for the month of August September 2017 Ex.P.33 Salary break up certificate Ex.P.34 Service certificate List of witnesses examined for the Respondents in MVC.7318/2017 & M.V.C.7319/2017:
R.W.1 J.R.Anantha Padmanabha List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents in MVC.7318/2017 & M.V.C.7319/2017:
Ex.R.1 & Notarized copy of trade certificates 2 List of witnesses examined for the petitioners in in MVC.34/2018 & M.V.C.35/2018:
P.W.1 Shiv Pujan singh List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners in MVC.34/2018 & M.V.C.35/2018:
Ex.P.1 Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 Copy of Spot Mahzar
Ex.P.3 Copy of Property form
(SCCH3) 55 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
Ex.P.4 Copy of sketch
Ex.P.5 Copy of notice U/s 133 of IMV Act
Ex.P.6 Copy of reply
Ex.P.7 Copy of IMV report
Ex.P.8 Copy of Inquest report
Ex.P.9 Copy of post mortem report
Ex.P.10 Copy of final report
Ex.P.11 Notarised copy of ration card
Ex.P.12 Notarised copy of aadhar card of
Ushakumari
Ex.P.13 Notarized copy of aadhar card of Rahul
Kumar
Ex.P.14 Notarized copy of aadhar card of Ravi
Kumar
Ex.P.15 Notarised copy of aadhar of Shiv Pujan
Singh
Ex.P.16 Notarized copy of aadhar card of Lali Devi
Ex.P.17 Notarized copy of aadhar card of deceased
Ashok Kumar
Ex.P.18 Notarized copy of election identity card of
deceased Ashok Kumar
Ex.P.19 Notarised copy of Health Insurance policy
( 2 in No.s)
Ex.P.20 Notarized copy of driving licence of deceased
Ex.P.21 Notarized copy of employment card of
deceased
Ex.P.22 Notarised copy of pay slip of deceased
Ex.P.23 Copy of inquest report
Ex.P.24 Copy of post mortem report
Ex.P.25 Notarized copy of aadhar card of deceased
Kavitha Devi
(SCCH3) 56 M.V.C.No.7318/2017
c/w M.V.C.No.7319/2017,
MVC.No.34/2018,
MVC.No.35/2018
List of witnesses examined for the Respondents in MVC.34/2018 & M.V.C.35/2018:
R.W.1 J.R.Anantha Padmanabha List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents in MVC.34/2018 & M.V.C.35/2018:
Nil (SHILPA.K.S) VII Addl. Judge and ACMM, Bengaluru.