Bangalore District Court
In Mvc 1. A.Krishna Murthy vs In All 1. M/S. L.V.Travels on 27 January, 2022
KABC020113452019
IN THE COURT OF XIX ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES
BENGALURU (SCCH17)
On this the 27th day of January 2022
Present: V.NAGAMANI
B.A.L., LL.B., LL.M.,
C/C XIX ADDL. JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
M.V.C.No.2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 &
6518/2019
Petitioners in MVC 1. A.Krishna Murthy,
2517/2019 Son of Late Ajjaiah,
Aged about 35 years,
Resident of Gangasagara,
Ponnasamudra Post,
Pavagada Taluk,
Tumkur District,
2. Smt. Parijatha,
Wife of A.Krishamurthy,
Aged about 46 years,
2 SCCH17
MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019
3. Smt.G.K.Varalakshmi,
Daughter of A.Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 22 years,
4.Sonia B.K.
Daughter of A.Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 22 years,
2 to 4 are residents of
Gangasagara, Ponnasamudra
Post, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur
District.
(By Pleader Shri
M.J.Amarnath)
Petitioner in MVC Smt.Kumudvati H.S.
2740/2019 Daughter of
Hanumantharayappa,
Wife of Harish,
Aged about 29 years,
Resident of No.69,
Singareddihalli,
Tumkur561 202.
(By Pleader Shri
M.J.Amarnath)
Petitioner in MVC Shri Obaleshappa,
2589/2019 Son of Narasappa,
Aged about 59 years,
Resident of Gangasagara,
Ponnasamudra Post,
Pavagada Taluk,
Tumkur District.
(By Pleader Shri
M.J.Amarnath)
3 SCCH17
MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019
Pettiioner in MVC Deeksha Shamanthakumari,
6518/2019 Daughter of S.H.Dhananjaya,
Aged about 9 years,
being a minor represented by
her father natural guardian Shri
S.H.Dhananjaya,
Resident of Budibetta Post,
Singareddyhalli,
Pavagada Taluk,
Tumkur District.
((By Pleader Shri
M.J.Amarnath)
V/s
Respondents in all 1. M/s. L.V.Travels,
the cases No.19/12, Deepa Complex,
Ring Road, Opp. AIT
Papareddypalya,
Nagarabhavi II Stage,
Bengaluru.
(Owner of the vehicle bearing
registration No. KA41B4484
Chevrolet Thavera L.S.)
(Exparte)
2. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd., No.109, S.S.I. Area,
5th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru560 010.
(Insurer of the vehicle bearing
registration No.KA41B4484,
Chevrolet Tavera LS)
Policy
4 SCCH17
MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019
No.07160231DP108067018
valid from 23.9.2018 TO
22.9.2019)
(By Pleader Smt. T.N.Malathi)
JUDGMENT
This judgment is emerged consequent upon the petitions filed by the petitioners U/S 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/, Rs.30,00,000/ Rs.10,00,000/ and Rs.15,00,000/ respectively, along with interest, due to the death of G.K.Vidyasagar in M.V.C No.2517, and the injuries sustained by the petitioners of MVC 2740/2019 Smt. Kumudwathi H.S, M.V.C No.2589/2019Sri.Obaleshappa & M.V.C No.6518/2019Kumari Deeksha, in a road traffic accident.
2. These four petitions are arising out of the same accident. Hence, these petitions are clubbed and taken together for common discussion, for the sake of convenience and to avoid the repetition. 5 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 FACTS OF THE CASE IN NUTSHELL.
3. Facts leading to the case of the petitioners forthcoming in the petition averments that, on the fateful date of the alleged accident, on 21.4.2019 at about 4.30 p.m., G.K.Vidyasagar and the petitioners of MVC 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 were proceeding in a Car bearing registration No.KA414484 towards Bengaluru, after attending the function at the house of Dhananjaya at Singareddy. When they reached near Palavalli Tank (upper road) cross, the right rear tyre of the car got burst. Consequently, the driver of the car, lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the Iron barrier, due to which, car turtled. Due to this tremendous impact, G.K.Vidyasagar was died on the spot and the petitioners of MVC 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 were sustained grievous injuries.
4. It is stated that, dead body of the Vidyasagar was shifted to Government Hospital, Pavagada. After 6 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 conducting the post mortem, the dead body was handed over to the petitioners. The petitioners have spent Rs.2,00,000/ towards funeral and obsequies and transportation of body.
5. It is stated that, prior to the accident the deceasaed G.K.Vidyasagar was hale and healthy, aged about 19 years, studying in B.E., at Sambram Institute of Technology at M.S.Palya, Bengaluru. Since his childhood he was a bright student. Due to the sudden demise of G.K.Vidyasagar, his father, mother and sisters were suffered great mental agony.
6. It is stated that, prior to the accident, immediately after the accident the petitioner of MVC 2740/2019 was shifted to Pavagada Government hospital, again she was shifted to NIMHANS, Bengaluru and even today, she is taking treatment in private hospital. The petitioner has spent Rs.1,00,000/ for the medicines. Further it is stated that, prior to the accident petitioner 7 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 was hale and healthy, aged about 29 years, and was doing tailoring work and used to earn Rs.12,000/ per month. Due to the accidental injuries, she could not do her work as she was earlier.
7. It is stated that, immediately after the accident the petitioner of MVC 2589/2019, was shifted to Pavagada Government hospital, again he was shifted to ESI Medical College, PGIMSR and Model Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, wherein he took the treatment as inpatient. The petitioner has spent huge amount for his treatment. Further it is stated that, prior to the accident petitioner was hale and healthy, aged about 59 years, working as a Supervisor in Garments and drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/ per month. Due to the accidental injuries he could not do his work as he was earlier.
8. It is stated that, immediately after the accident, the minor petitioner of M.V.C No. 6518/2019, was shifted to Pavagada Government hospital, again she was shifted 8 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 to Manav Charitable Hospital, Zindal Nagar, Tumkur Road, Bengaluru, wherein she took the treatment as an inpatient. The petitioner has spent Rs.1,50,000/ for the medicines. Further it is stated that, prior to the accident petitioner was hale and healthy, aged about 9 years, student, studying in 9th standard. Due to the accidental injuries, she missed her classes and her future is ruined.
9. It is alleged in the petitions that, the accident had taken place, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Chevrolet Thavera L.S. bearing registration No.KA41B4484. Therefore, the respondent No.1, being the owner and the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have filed the respective petitions claiming compensation in the case on hand.
10. After registration of the case, as usual notices were issued to the respondents. In response to the notices, 9 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 respondent No.1 has not appeared before the court, and remained absent and placed exparte, as per the order of this court. The respondent No.2 has appeared through its counsel, and filed written statement in answer to the case of the petitioner.
11. In the written statement of the respondent No.2, has not seriously disputed the accident, and also, the injuries, sustained by the petitioners and the death of Vidyasagar. But denied the allegation of the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and the involvement of the offending vehicle, in the accident. And contended that, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle, as on the date of the accident. Further contended that, neither the owner of the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have complied the mandatory provisions of section 134(c) and section 158(6) of the M.V. Act in furnishing the better particulars. Further admitted the issuance of the 10 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 policy in respect of the Maxi cab car bearing registration No.KA41B4484 and its validity. It is another contention that, the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant, without any basis. With all these main grounds, sought for to dismiss the case against respondent No.2.
12. On the basis of the rival pleadings of both the parties, for final determination of this case, following issues were framed:
ISSUES IN MVC 2517/2019
1. Whether the petitioner proves that Shri G.K.Vidyasagar, son of A.Krishnamurthy had died in the accident, that was taken place on 21.4.2019 at about 3.00 p.m. when he was proceeding in a car bearing registration No.KA41B4484 at PavagadaKalyanadurga road, Palavalli Katte, Tumkur due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 11 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 above said car in an actionable negligence?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and fom whom?
3. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC 2311/2019
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, she sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident, that was taken place on 21.4.2019 at a bout 3.30 p.m. when she was travelling in a car bearing registratin No.KA41B4484 at PavagadaKalyanadurga road, Palavalli Katte, Tumkur District, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the above said car in an actionable negligence?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate and fom whom?
12 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019
3. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC 2589/2019
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident, that was taken place on 21.4.2019 at a bout 3.30 p.m. when she was travelling in a car bearing registratin No.KA41B4484 at PavagadaKalyanadurga road, Palavalli Katte, Tumkur District, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the above said car in an actionable negligence?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate and fom whom?
3. What order or award?
13 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 ISSUES IN MVC 6518/2019
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, she sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident, that was taken place on 21.4.2019 at a bout 3.30 p.m. when she was travelling in a car bearing registratin No.KA41B4484 at PavagadaKalyanadurga road, Palavalli Katte, Tumkur District, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the above said car in an actionable negligence?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate and fom whom?
3. What order or award?
13. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioners, by name A.Krishnamurthy, Obaleshappa, guardian of the minor petitioner by name Dhananjaya and Kumudvathi H.S., during the course of evidence, placed 14 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 their respective affidavits, in lieu of examinationinchief, who examined as PW1 to PW4 in the case on hand. At the time of their evidence, 37 documentary evidence got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P37. Another witness by name Dr.Rajesh M.B. was examined as PW5. At the time of his evidence, 2 documentary evidence got marked as Ex.P38 & Ex.P39, for consideration.
14. On the other hand, to prove the defenses forthcoming in the objection, the respondent No.2, has not placed any evidence for consideration. Thereafter matter was set down for arguments.
15. Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel. And perused the entire materials, available on record.
16. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, my findings to the issues in MVC No.2517/2019 are as follows:
15 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly, in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following:
17. On the other hand, my findings to the issues in MVC No.2740/2019 are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following:
18. On the other hand, my findings to the issues in MVC No.2589/2019 are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following:
19. On the other hand, my findings to the issues in MVC No.6518/2019 are as follows:
16 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following:
R E A S O N S
ISSUE NO.1, IN ALL THE CASES:
20. It is the strong assertion of the petitioners, in all the cases that, due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA41B 4484, the alleged accident had taken place. In the said accident one G.K.Vidyasagar, son of A.Krishamurthy succumbed to the injuries, and the petitioners by name, Obaleshappa, Kumudvathi and minor girl Deeksha were sustained injuries consequent upon the accident.
21. It is the settled principle that, the petitioners have to prove the above issues, on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities, by placing cogent and 17 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 convincing evidence on record. As per the above issues, burden is on the petitioners to prove the said issues, to the satisfaction of the court. Apart from this, it is pertinent to note that, the respondent No.1, being the owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and placed exparte in the case on hand. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 being the insurance company, has not seriously disputed the accident and its consequences even not denied the existence of the policy as on the date of the accident pertaining to the offending vehicle. But disputed the allegation of actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. But, in support of the defenses forthcoming in the written statement, has not adduced evidence, in answer to the case of the respective petitioners.
22. On going through the evidence of the petitioners the PW1, being the legal heir of the deceased G.K.Vidyasagar, who is none other than the father of the 18 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 deceased, stepped into the witness box, on his behalf and also on behalf of other legal heirs. In his affidavit evidence reiterated the main petition averments. And in support of the assertions of the petitioners, relied on 16 documents for consideration, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and Ex.P27. Apart from this, injured Obaleshappa and natural guardian father of the minor petitioner and the injured petitioner Kumudvathi H.S., relied on respective affidavit evidence by reiterating the main petition averments, who were examined as PW2 to PW4. And these witnesses, at the time of their respective evidence, place the documentary evidence marked at Ex.P16 to Ex.P21, Ex.P28, Ex.P29. Ex.P22 to Ex.P26 and Ex.P30 to Ex.P33, Ex.P34 to Ex.P37 respectively for consideration. To prove the injuries sustained by the PW2, relied on the evidence of PW5 Dr.Rajesh. At the time of his evidence two documents got marked as Ex.P38 and Ex.P39. 19 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019
23. Among the documentary evidence placed by the petitioners, Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, Ex.P17, Ex.P22 and Ex.P34 are the material documents for consideration, to prove the above issues. On perusal of these documents reveal that, on the basis of first information given by one Sudarshan A. on the same day of the accident, criminal law set in motion against the driver of the car by name Harish, alleging that, he has committed the offences punishable under section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. As already discussed above, there is no delay in giving first information. In the recitals of the complaint given by the complainant reveals that, the complainant has received the information about the accident from one Girikanye, who was also the inmate of the offending car. Ex.P2 mahazar reveals that, on the same date of registration of the case, the investigation officer visited the spot and conducted mahazar process, in the presence of punch witnesses and the complainant. Seizure of the offending 20 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 vehicle in the spot, clearly evident about the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Since the death of G.K.Vidyasagar is not disputed point in issue, more discussion on the P.M. report marked at Ex.P3 and inquest mahazar marked at Ex.P4 is not required. But it is crystal clear from these two documents that, on the history of RTA, the death had taken place. On the said background corpus, was referred for postmortem. Ex.P5 IMV report, speaks that, the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the offending vehicle. Ex.P6 spot sketch and the place of accident, shown in the said document clearly discloses about the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident. As per the said document, to the extreme edge of the road, offending vehicle car was found in a fallen condition, at the time of the visit of the investigation of the officer, to conduct mahazar in the spot. All these 21 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 material documents, remained unquestioned by the other side.
24. Another material document Ex.P7, is the final report submitted by the investigation officer against the driver of the offending car, alleging that, he has committed the offences punishable under section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. With respect to the recitals of these two documents, the driver of the offending car has not made an effort to impeach the said document and to prove the innocence of the driver of the said car well in time, before the competent court of law. Apart from this, the remaining documents mentioned above, which are the wound certificates of the respective injured petitioners, clearly disclose that, the said petitioners sustained injuries consequent upon the accident.
25. At the time of crossexamination of PW1 to PW4 though several questions put to these witnesses, nothing has been elicited from their mouth to disbelieve the 22 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 assertion of the petitioners, against the driver of the car. And no satisfactory material on record to show that, false documents have been engineered against the driver of the offending vehicle, in order to gain compensation from the hands of the respondent No.2.
26. Over all appreciation of evidence placed by the petitioners in all the cases, it is crystal clear from the evidence adduced by the petitioners that, due to the actionable negligence on the part of the offending vehicle death of G.K.Vidyasagar had taken place, and the petitioners in MVC 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 were sustained grievous injuries. In the light of the discussions held above, without making much discussion on the point of rash and negligent driving, I hold that, the accident was occurred purely on the part of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle Chevrolet Tavera LS bearing registration No.KA41114484. Accordingly, I am of the view that, the petitioners have placed satisfactory 23 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 and convincing materials on record, to prove the aforesaid issues. The said evidence remained unshaken. Resultantly, I am answering the Issue No.1 in all the cases are in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2 IN ALL THE CASES:
27. These issue are with respect to the entitlement of reliefs claimed by the respective petitioners under different heads.
28. Firstly, coming to the point of quantum of compensation for which, the petitioners in MVC 2517/2019 are entitled is concerned, the petitioners in the said case, are the legal representatives of deceased Vidyasagar. As per law every legal representative, who suffers on account of the death of a person, due to a motor vehicle accident, should have remedy for realization of compensation. Since in the death case, the legal heirs are the claimants. In the case on hand, the relationship of deceased persons with the respective petitioners is not in
24 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 dispute. At the same time, the documents produced by the petitioners, to prove their relationship with the deceased, marked at Ex.P8 to Ex.P15 and Ex.P27 have not been seriously disputed by the other side. The recitals of the above documents, clearly speak about the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased persons.
29. Another aspect to be considered herein, on going through the age particulars of the petitioners, mentioned in the cause title of the petition, reflect that, in MVC No. 2517/2019 the petitioner No.1 & 2, lost their son in the middle age. And the petitioner No.3 & 4 being the sisters of the deceased G.K.Vidyasagar lost the love and affection of their brother. The respondents herein have not produced documents on record, to show the independent economic status of the petitioners. And to disprove their dependency, with the deceased person during his life time. By taking into consideration of all these factors, along with 25 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 the evidence of PW1, it is crystal clear that, the petitioners were the dependents of the deceased during his lifetime.
30. On the other hand, to prove the actual age of the deceased G.K.Vidyasagar, placed SSLC marks card of deceased. On going through the said document marked at Ex.P8, the date of birth of the deceased was mentioned as 13.11.2000. The accident occurred on 21.4.2019. Therefore, as on the date of the accident the age of the deceased was 19 years. Hence, it is apt to take the age of the deceased Vidyasagar G.K. as 19 years as on the date of the accident. For his age, multiplier '18' is applicable as per the ratio in "Sarala Verma" Case.
31. In connection with the work of the deceased, in the main petition and also in the evidence of PW1, it is stated that, he was studying in the 1st year B.E. Information Science and Engineering. And no whisper in the main petition, about the monthly income of the deceased as on the date of the accident. It means the 26 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 deceased during his lifetime, was dedicating his valuables time for his education to buildup bright future. In the absence of the specific income of the student, as per law, notional income has to be taken into consideration by looking into in detail, about the academic documents of the deceased. On going through the Ex.P8 notarized copy of the marks card pertaining to the Vidyasagar G.K. discloses that he obtained first class marks. And Ex.P9 discloses that, he is the student of S.A.M.B.H.R.A.M. Institute of Technology. Ex.P10 is the library card pertaining to the deceased. And Ex.P11 certificate speaks that, he has participated in 12th international level science talent examination 2010, and secured Ist class in school level. And other certificates placed along with the said document reveal about the intelligency of the deceased during his lifetime. All these documentary evidence clearly disclose that, if at all the deceased was alive, he would have become the asset to the society and backbone to his 27 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 family members. Added to this, he would have got good academic future and also, there would be a chances securing the respectable good job to serve the society, as well as to look after his family. By taking into consideration of all these documents and material facts and the year of the institution of the case, and the age of the deceased, as on the date of the accident, it is apt to take the income of the deceased, who was the student as on the date of the accident as Rs.10,000/ per month. The same will meet the ends of justice.
32. Another point to be taken in to consideration herein that, as per the petition, four persons were the dependents of the deceased. In this regard, about the deduction of the personal and living expenses is concerned, the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarala Verma Case at para No.14 is to be considered.
28 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019
33. Apart from this, it is also relevant to discuss, that the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in, 2018 SAR (Civil) 81. National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and others, " It was observed that, "While determining the income, an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30 per cent, if the age of the deceased was between 40 and 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years, the addition should be 15 per cent. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 year. An addition of 25 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years. An addition of 25 per cent where the deceased 29 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 was between the age of 40 and 50 years and 10 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 5060 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. "
34. Having considered the above, as per law laid down in the above case. In the light of the above proposition, in the case on hand, since the deceased was a bachelor, deduction towards personal and living expenses out of the total compensation is to be considered. In the present case, deceased was aged about 19 years, as on the date of the accident. For this age multiplier "18" is applicable. And by relying on the aforesaid principle laid down in the Pranay Sethi's case with respect to the age of the petitioner and also on going through the student life of the deceased mentioned in the petition averments, it is evident that, the petitioner herein is not having permanent job. As such by taking into consideration of the nature of the employment mentioned in the petition, I am of the
30 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 view that, 40% income of the deceased has to be taken into account towards future prospects. Therefore, by considering the earning of the deceased as Rs.10, 000/ per month. And Rs.1, 20,000/ per year. Along with this, the future prospects of 40% is to be taken in to consideration, then the annual income of the deceased comes to (Rs.1,20,000+48,000)= Rs.1,68,000/. And 50% has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses in the income of the deceased. Thus net loss income comes to Rs.84,000/ (Rs.1,68,000Rs.84,000). This income has to be multiplied by multiplier "18". Which comes to Rs.15,12,000/ .
35. Apart from this aspect, in connection with the loss of estate, consortium, and with respect to the funeral expenses, to calculate the quantum of the compensation under the aforesaid heads, it is relevant to note herein the following authority, 31 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 2018 SAR (Civil) 81. National Insurance Company Limited. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, The Hon'ble Apex Court discussed various aspects in connection with the claim petition filed by the claimants for compensation. And also observed that while determining the claim petition, the reasonable figures on conventional heads, viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/, Rs.40,000/ and Rs.15,000/ respectively. The aforesaid amount should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
36. In the light of the proposition laid down in the aforesaid case, I am of the view that, In addition to this the petitioners being the parents and the brother and sister of the deceased, are entitle for sum of Rs.40,000/ in the head of loss of consortium. Further, the petitioners are also entitled for sum of Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses. And also the petitioners are entitled for sum of Rs.15,000/ in the head of loss to the estate. Further the 32 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 petitioners are entitled for Rs.10,000/ towards transportation of dead body. Apart from this, it is to be noted that, in Pranay Sethi's case, the Honourable Apex Court, observed that, after expiry of every three years, from the date of the judgment, 10% is to be added to Rs.70,000/ towards conventional heads. Which comes to Rs.7,000/. Hence, the petitioners are entitle for Rs.77,000/ towards conventional heads.
37. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation under the following heads.
Compensation heads Compensation
Amount
Towards loss of dependency Rs.15,12,00000
Towards loss of consortium Rs. 44,00000
Towards loss of estate Rs. 16,50000
Towards funeral & obsequies Rs. 16,50000
ceremony expenses
Towards transportation of Rs. 10,00000
dead body
Total Rs.15,99,00000
33 SCCH17
MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019
38. Accordingly, the petitioners herein are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.15,99,000/ (Rupees fifteen lakhs and ninety nine thousand only), along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as per the proposition laid down by the Honourable High court of Karnataka in MFA No.103557/2016, Between Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited V/S. Lakshmi And Others dated. 20.03.2018. And MFA No.30131/2019 dated.12.5.2020.
39. Secondly, in connection with MVC No.2740/2019 is concerned, the petitioner by name Kumudvati H.S. to substantiate her contention that, she had sustained injuries in the accident, has produced OPD marked at Ex.P36 The said document discloses that, she sustained the following injuries: Trauma to the Head 34 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019
40. Except this document to show the nature of the injuries sustained by her whether simple or grievous in nature has not produced any iota of documents for consideration, except the production of emergency case record, prescription and medical bills as per the Ex.P34, Ex.P36 & Ex.P37. For having taken note of the injuries sustained by the petitioner & by taking note of the nature of the injuries sustained by her, and by keeping in mind about her sufferings during the said period of treatment, I am of the view that, the petitioner is entitle for compensation of Rs.5,000/ towards pain and suffering.
41. Another point to be discussed herein, about the loss of income during laid up period and rest period. In the petition, she had stated that, she was doing tailoring and getting an income of Rs.12,000/ per month. But no documentary evidence in this regard. Anyhow, there was some difficulty to her, during the period of treatment, to do daily routine work and to do her work for livelihood. She 35 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 could have taken rest in this regard, atleast for a day. Hence, I am of the view that, she is entitle for compensation of Rs.500/ towards the period of laid up and rest period.
42. The petitioner herein, in connection with her treatment expenses, at the time of her evidence placed 10 medical bills as per Ex.P37 of Rs.946/ and 1 prescription as per Ex.P36. The said documents remained unquestioned by the other side. At the time of cross examination of PW4, in para No.2, she denied the suggestion that, she has not produced any documents to show that, she borne the medical expenses of Rs.1,75,000/ at the time of her treatment. But to substantiate her denial, and to substantiate that she spent Rs.1, 75,000/, no iota of documents placed on record for consideration. Hence, the petitioner is entitle for compensation of Rs.946/ under the head of medical expenses.
36 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019
43. The petitioner herein, has not placed all medial documents to prove the mode of treatment and to prove her assertions about the treatments. But her evidence, and the medical documents placed by her, remained unquestioned and unchallenged by the other side. As such, during the period of treatment, the petitioner could have taken the assistance of the attendant for travelling, and she could have spent some amount towards travelling, food and nourishment. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,000/ towards attendant charges, food, and nourishment and conveyance charges.
44. Another material point of loss of future income is concerned, the petitioner herein, asserting that, she has sustained permanent disability, consequent upon the injuries sustained by her, except her evidence and documents marked at Ex.P.34 to Ex.P37, no other documents are available on record for consideration about the loss of income consequent upon the injuries sustained 37 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 by her. Apart from this, the petitioner herein, to prove the point of disability, has not produced disability certificate or placed the evidence of doctor to assess the disability if any, in connection with the injuries sustained by her. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the compensation under the head of Loss of Future Income due to want of evidence on record.
45. Next factual aspect of loss of amenities is concerned, on going through the injuries mentioned in the medical documents reveal that, consequent upon the injuries sustained by her, will not cause any difficulty in future to do her daily routine work as well as the work of tailor. Hence, I am of the view that, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of amenities.
46. In connection with the future medication expenses is concerned, the petitioner has not placed any documents for consideration. Hence, I am of the view that, 38 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the head of future medication.
47. In view of my due discussions held above, on various aspects, the petitioner is entitled for compensation in toto, under the following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
1. Pain and Suffering Rs.5,00000
2. Loss of income during laidup Rs. 50000 period and rest period
3. Medical expenses Rs. 94600
4. Attendant, Nourishment and Rs.1,00000 Conveyance Charges
5. Loss of future income Nil
6. Loss of Amenities Nil
7. Future medication Nil Total Rs.7,44600
48. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,446/ (Rupees seven thousand four hundred and forty six only) along with interest @ 39 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 6% per annum, from the date of the petition, till the realization of the award amount.
49. Thirdly, in connection with the injuries sustained by the petitioner of MVC No.2589/2019 by name Obaleshappa is concerned, to substantiate his contention that, he had sustained injuries in the accident, has produced wound certificate marked at Ex.P16. The said document discloses that, he sustained the following injuries:
1) Fracture of both bones of right leg (closed)
2) Fracture of third rib on left side
50. According to the doctor, the aforesaid injuries are greivous in nature. Apart from this, the petitioner has produced, out patient record, referral card, discharge summary and xrays as per Ex.P17 to Ex.P19 and Ex.P21. On going through the discharge summary, marked at Ex.P19 discloses that, he took treatment in the ESIC Medical College, PGIMSR and Model Hospital from 40 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 21.4.2019 to 4.5.2019. As per the said document, he took treatment for his fracture injuries. And he sustained the said injuries consequent upon the accident. For having taken note of the injuries sustained by the petitioner & by taking note of the nature of the injuries sustained by him, and by keeping in mind about his sufferings during the said period of treatment, in connection with the fracture injuries, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/ towards pain and suffering.
51. Another point to be discussed herein, about the loss of income during laid up period and rest period. In the petition, he had stated that, he was a Supervisor in Garments and was getting salary of Rs.20,000/ per month. He has produced ID card and certificate issued by Balanjaneya Garments in this regard. And the injuries sustained by him are grievous in nature as per the wound certificate. Ongoing through the discharge summary 41 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 Ex.P19 discloses that, he took treatment in the ESIC Medical College, PGIMSR and Model Hospital from 21.4.2019 to 4.5.2019. Hence, definitely there was some difficulty to him, during the period of treatment, to do daily routine work and to do his work for livelihood at least for two months. Hence, I am of the view that, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.24,000/ towards loss of income during the laid up period and rest period.
52. The petitioner herein, in connection with his treatment expenses, has not produced any documents. In such a situation court cannot consider the point of medical expenses on the basis of surmises and conjunctures in the absence of material documents. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the head of medical expenses.
53. The petitioner herein, as per the medical records, had sustained grievous injuries and took treatment as an inpatient from 21.4.2019 to 4.5.2019. As 42 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 such, during the period of treatment, the petitioner could have taken the assistance of the attendant for travelling, and he could have spent some amount towards travelling, food and nourishment. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/ towards attendant charges, food, and nourishment and conveyance charges.
54. Another material point of loss of future income is concerned, the petitioner herein, asserting that, he sustained permanent disability, consequent upon the injuries sustained by him. In order to prove the same, the petitioner has relied on his evidence along with the wound certificate, and other medical documents. In the evidence of the said petitioner, reiterated the same thing forthcoming in the main petition. As already discussed above, discharge summary placed by him as per Ex.P19, goes to show that, he had fracture of both bones of right leg and took the treatment as inpatient from 21.4.2019 to 43 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 4.5.2019. Apart from this, the petitioner had placed the evidence of the doctor by name Dr.Rajesh M.B.
55. In the evidence of this material witness, PW5, bringforth the point that, he being an orthopedic surgeon at Meditech Healthcare and Diagnostics, Herohalli, Bengaluru deposed that, the petitioner was treated at ESIC Medical college, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru and operated with ORIF with IL nailing right tibia, he was subsequently discharged on 4.5.2019. According to the PW5, on 1.11.20121 he was examined the petitioner, both clinically and radiologically to give his opinion and for assessment of disability. And as per the Gazette Notification and Ministry of Social and Empowerment 2018 he assessed the disability with respect to right lower limb is 41%. But in connection with the whole body disability no whisper in his evidence. Further he deposed that, the petitioner requires, one more surgery for implant removal of right tibia, which may costs Rs.60,000/. The evidence 44 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 given by the PW5 in connection with the disability of the petitioner and the documentary evidence placed by him, with respect to the petitioner's clinical notes and xray remained unshaken by the other side. Though, several questions put to this witness at the time of cross examination, nothing worthwhile is elicited to impeach the evidence of the PW5 in toto.
56. At the time of crossexamination, he admitted that, he is not treated doctor to the petitioner. After two years of the accident he examined the petitioner. And answered that, now the fracture of the petitioner is united and admitted that, the petitioner is the senior citizen. Except the removal of implants no other surgery is required to the petitioner. And admitted the suggestion of the respondent No.1 that, if at all there is no problem in connection with the insertion of implants, there is no necessity to remove the same. Further he admitted that, in the Ex.P38, there is no mention about the problems 45 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 pertaining to the insertion of the implants to the petitioner. And he clearly admitted in para No.5 of his examination inchief evidence that, in the Ex.P38 he mentioned disability only with respect to a particular limb and admitted that, he has not given any estimation with regard to the future medication of Rs.60,000/ as narrated in the examinationinchief evidence and not denied the suggestion that, he has not taken the suggestion of the treated doctor before examining the petitioner. Over all appreciation of the evidence given by the PW5 and other medical documents, I am of the view that, in connection with the whole body physical disability of the petitioner is concerned, it is apt to take 8%. The same will meet the ends of justice.
57. In connection with the age of the petitioner by name Obaleshappa is concerned, on going through the cause title of the petition reveals that, his age was 59 years. As per the wound certificate marked at Ex.P16, as 46 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 on the date of accident his age was 60 years. As per Aadhar card marked at Ex.P20, date of the birth of the petitioner has been mentioned 1.6.1960. The alleged accident had taken place on 21.4.2019. Hence, by taking in to consideration of the medical document Ex.P16, which remained unquestioned by the other side, it is safe to hold the age of the petitioner at the time of accident was 59 years. To the said age as per Sarla Verma case, multiplier '9' is to be taken into consideration.
58. Next factual aspect of the income of the petitioner is concerned, in the main petition and also in the examinationinchief evidence, it is the assertion of the petitioner that, prior to the accident, he was working as a Supervisor in Garments and used to earn Rs.20,000/ per month. To prove the same, at the time of his evidence produced the I.D. card of the petitioner and also the certificate issued by Balanjaneya Garments as per Ex.P28 and Ex.P29. Ex.P28 is the I.D. card of the petitioner 47 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 pertaining to the Shri Balanjaneya Garments. In the said document, it is mentioned that, he joined to the said work on 1.1.2018 as a Supervisor and as per the Ex.P29 issued by the Head of the said Shri Balanjaneya Garments discloses that, his take home salary is of Rs.20,000/. But to substantiate the said document, author of the document has not been examined by the petitioner nor produced bank account statement of the petitioner to show that, he used to get Rs.20,000/, per month, since 1.1.2018. At least he could have place the evidence of the head of the Shri Balanjaneya Garments to substantiate about his job and to know whether he is receiving the salary by hand or through his bank account. In the absence of all these material documents, it is very difficult to come to the conclusion with respect to the actual salary of the petitioner, as on the date of the accident. In such a situation, as per law notional income has to be considered. By looking into the date of accident and the year of 48 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 institution of this petition as well as other innate circumstance forthcoming in the case of the petitioner. Hence, in the case on hand, it is apt to take the income of Rs.12,000/ per month for the year 2019. The same will meet the ends of justice.
59. In the light of my detailed discussions held above, no doubt injuries sustained by the petitioner definitely come in the way of his future, in a slight manner, to do his daily routine work as well as to do his work. Hence, the petitioner herein, is entitled for compensation under loss of future income as follows:
Rs.12,000 X 12 X 9 X 8/100 = Rs.1,03,680/
60. Next factual aspect loss of amenities is concerned, due to the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate and the discharge summary and also on going the evidence of PW5, definitely the petitioner will suffer a slight problem in future also to do his normal work and also his work for livelihood. By taking into consideration 49 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 of all these aspects I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.20,000/ towards loss of amenities.
61. In connection with the future medication expenses is concerned, the petitioner has not placed any documents for consideration. PW5 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon, has stated in his evidence that, the petitioner needs another surgery for implant removal of right tibia, which may costs approximately Rs.60,000/. By taking into consideration of the same, I am of the view that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/ under the head of future medication.
62. In view of my due discussions held above, on various aspects, the petitioner is entitled for compensation in toto, under the following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
1. Pain and Suffering Rs. 50,00000
2. Loss of income during laidup Rs. 24,00000 period and rest period 50 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019
3. Medical expenses Nil
4. Attendant, Nourishment and Rs. 5,00000 Conveyance Charges
5. Loss of future income Rs.1,03,68000
6. Loss of Amenities Rs. 20,00000
7. Future medication Rs. 20,00000 Total Rs.2,22,68000
63. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,22,680/ (Rupees two lakhs twenty two thousand six hundred and eighty only) along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of the petition, till the realization of the award amount.
64. Fourthly, coming to the point of quantum of compensation for which, the minor petitioner is entitled is concerned. During the evidence of the natural guardian father of the minor petitioner has produced the wound certificate of the minor petitioner. The said document marked at Ex.P.22, reveals that, the minor petitioner had 51 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 sustained the following injuries, consequent upon the Road Traffic Accident.
Left forearm Ad Greedstick feature of left forearm opstine deformity
65. According to the doctor, the said injuries are grievous in nature. Apart from this, father of the petitioner, during the course of his evidence placed, referral letter as per Ex.P23 for consideration. PW3 being the natural guardian father of the minor petitioner has not made an effort to place the evidence of the doctor to prove the nature of the injuries and about the disability if any, in connection with the said injuries. Apart from the wound certificate, PW3 has placed referral card, study certificate and Aadhar card, discharge summary OPD card, 3 medical bills and two prescriptions, for consideration. The said documents were marked as Ex.P23 to Ex.P26 and Ex.P32 and Ex.P33. Apart from this, it is to be noted that, as per Ex.P25 her date of birth has been mentioned as 7.3.2011. If the said date is taken into consideration, as 52 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 on the date of the accident, the petitioner was aged about 8 years. Ex.P30 discharge summary of the minor petitioner speaks that, she was admitted as an inpatient in Someshwara hospital and discharged on 10.5.2019. It means she took treatment in the hospital on the history of RTA for three years. In the recitals of the said document, it is noted that, simple fracture has been sustained by the minor petitioner, to her left forearm with flustic deformity. As per the said document under G.A. and Carm image guidance forearm fracture manipulated alignment confirmed and elbow cast applied. At the time of discharge except mentioning some tablets no specific advice was given for followup treatment and outpatient record pertaining to the minor Deeksha marked at Ex.P31 discloses that, up to 6th May 2019, she took treatment as an outpatient. Except these documents no documents available on record for consideration. 53 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019
66. Apart from this aspect, it is pertinent to discuss that, in case of minor victims of accident, it is very difficult to assess the loss of future income. In this regard, it is necessary to note the authority, reported in:
A.I.R 2014 S.C Page 736, Master Mallikarjun v/s Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Ltd., and Another, In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that, though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regarding to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Court, that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant etc., should be if the disability is above 10% and up to 30% to the whole body Rs.3,00,000/ up to 60% Rs.4,00,000/ up to 90%, Rs.5,00,000/ and above 90% it should 54 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 be Rs.6,00,000/. For permanent disability up to 10%, it should be Rs.1,00,000/ unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick.
67. In the present case, to consider the loss of future income of the petitioner, evidence of the doctor is not available on record, to assess the percentage of disability. The petitioner herein, through her father except production of some medical documents has not placed any evidence of the doctor to show the disability sustained by her consequent upon the accident. But as per the record she sustained grievous injury to her left forearm with exposed deformity. But no documentary evidence to show the percentage of disability sustained by the minor petitioner consequent upon the accident. As such, by considering all these aspects, in the case on hand, strictly we cannot follow the proposition laid down in the above case in the absence of evidence with respect to the specific percentage of disability. But on taking bird's eye view 55 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 towards the wound certificate, referral card, discharge summary, OPD card marked at Ex.P22 & 23, 30 and 31. And also on going through the nature of the injuries sustained by the minor petitioner as per the wound certificate, definitely she being a minor child, could have undergone pain and sufferings. That cannot be fully compensated in terms of money. But, if some amount has been awarded under the head of the pain and suffering on the concept of just compensation, will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly the minor petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/ towards pain and sufferings.
68. Secondly, on going through the medical documents pertaining to the injured, and also looking to the mode of treatment given to the petitioner, and also on perusal of the entire medical documents of the minor petitioner , along with the point forthcoming in the discharge summary that, she took treatment in the 56 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 hospital from 7.5.2019 to 10.5.2019, I am of the view that, the minor petitioner is entitle for compensation of Rs.25,000/ under the head of discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents, during the period of hospitalization of the minor.
69. Thirdly, in connection with the medical expenses is concerned, the PW3, at the time of his evidence, placed 3 medical bills of Rs.8,073/ marked at Ex.P32 and two prescriptions as per Ex.P33. The said medical bills have not been seriously disputed by the other side. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,073/ under the head of medical expenses.
70. Fourthly, by considering the nature of injuries sustained by the minor, I am of the opinion that the parents of the minor petitioner, could have spent some amount towards food, nourishment and transportation 57 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 charges. Hence, a compensation of Rs.5,000/ may be awarded under the head of food and nourishment transportation and other incidental expenses.
71. Fifthly, in connection with the future medication expenses, the minor petitioner is concerned, no convincing documents or evidence are available on record for consideration. Hence, the minor petitioner is not entitle for any compensation under the head of future medication.
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
1. Pain and Suffering already Rs.20,00000 undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical hardship, inconvenience and discomforts etc., and loss of amenities in life on account of injuries and discomfort
2. Under the head of Rs.25,00000 discomforts, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalisation of the minor
3. Medical expenses Rs. 8,07300 58 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019
4. Food and Nourishment, Rs. 5,00000 Conveyance Charges and other incidental charges
5. Future medication Nil Total Rs.58,07300
72. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the minor petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.58,073/ (Rupees fifty eight thousand and seventy three only) with interest at the rate of along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of the petition, till the realization of the award amount.
LIABILITY:
73. In so far as liability is concerned, it is the assertion of the petitioners in all the cases that, the respondent No.1 being the owner and the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle CAR bearing registration No.KA41B4484 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. And as per the assertion of the petitioners, policy was valid from 59 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 23.9.2018 to 22.9.2019. The alleged accident had taken place on 21.4.2019. The existence of the policy pertaining to the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident has not been seriously disputed by the respondent No.2. Added to this, the respondent No.2 has not placed any evidence on record, about the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by the owner of the offending vehicle. As such the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, the respondent No.2, being the insurance company has to indemnify the loss by payment of compensation amount determined by this court with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till its realization. Accordingly, I am answering the issue No.2 in all the cases are partly in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3 IN ALL THE CASES:
74. In view of above discussion on all issues, in all the three cases, I proceed to pass the following; 60 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 O R D E R The claim petitions filed by the respective petitioners, as per MVC No.2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 and MVC No.6518/2019, under section 166 of M.V. Act, are hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation amount as noted below, with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petitions till the date of deposit.
MVC No.2517/2019 Rs.15,99,000-00
MVC No.2740/2019 Rs.7,44600
MVC No.2589/2019 Rs.2,22,68000
MVC No.6518/2019 Rs.58,07300
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 61 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the respective petitioners, together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till its realization within two months from the date of this order.
In MVC No.2517/2019, Out of the compensation amount awarded to the petitioners together with interest, the petitioner No.1 is entitle the share of 30%, the petitioner No.2 is entitle the share of 40% and the petitioner No.3 & 4 are entitle to the share of 15% each out of the total award amount.
After deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, the petitioner No.1 to 4, shall deposit 40% out of their share, in any nationalized/schedule bank of their choice, for a 62 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 period of 3 years. And remaining 60% shall be released to them through due process of law.
In MVC No.2740/2019, after deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, since the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner is meagre, entire amount shall be released to her through due process of law.
In MVC No. 2589/2019, after deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, the petitioner, shall deposit 40% of the awarded amount, in any nationalized/schedule bank of his choice, for a period of 3 years. And remaining 60% shall be released to him through due process of law.
In MVC No.6518/2019, after deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, since the petitioner being a minor, entire compensation amount shall be deposited in any 63 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 nationalized/schedule bank, till she attains the age of majority. After attaining the age of majority, entire amount shall be released to her, through due process of law. The natural guardian father is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on her deposited amount, from time to time, and directed to be utilized the same to the welfare of the minor child.
The original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.2517/2019, and copy of the same shall be kept in MVC No.2740/2019, 2589/2019 and 6518/2019.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/ each. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, online, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 27th day of January 2022).
(V.NAGAMANI) C/C XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM, BANGALORE.
64 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Shri A.Krishnamurthy PW2 Shri Obaleshappa PW3 Shri Dhananjaya PW4 Kum.Kumudvathi H.S. PW5 Dr.Rajesh M.B.
List of documents exhibited on petitioners' side:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P3 True copy of P.M. report Ex.P4 True copy of Inquest Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report Ex.P6 True copy of sketch Ex.P7 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P8 Notarised copy of SSLC Marks card of deceased Ex.P9 Notarised copy of College ID card of deceased Ex.P10 Notarised copy of College Library card of deceased Ex.P11 Notarised copy of General Knowledge certificate of deceased Ex.P12 Notarised copy of RAtion card of family members Ex.P13 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of deceased Ex.P14 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of
65 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 petitioner No.1 Ex.P15 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.2 Ex.P16 True copy of wound certificate Ex.P17 Outpatient receipt Ex.P18 Referral card Ex.P19 Discharge summary Ex.P20 Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex.P21 Xray with films Ex.P22 True copy of wound certificate Ex.P23 Referral card Ex.P24 Study certificate Ex.P25 Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex.P26 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of witness Ex.P27 Study certificate of Vidya Sagar G.K. Ex.P28 Notarised copy of Office ID card of petitioner Ex.P29 Certificate issued by Balanjanya Garments Ex.P30 Discharge summary of Deeksha Shamanthatakamani Ex.P31 OPD card Ex.P32 Medical bills Ex.P33 Prescriptions Ex.P34 Emergency case record Ex.P35 OPD card Ex.P36 Prescription Ex.P37 Medical bills Ex.P38 Clinical Assistant Report Ex.P39 Xray List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
Nil
66 SCCH17 MVC 2517/2019, 2740/2019, 2589/2019 & 6518/2019 List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Nil (V.NAGAMANI) C/C XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM, BANGALORE.