Bangalore District Court
Smt.Lakshmamma vs Kgid on 7 March, 2020
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE. (SCCH11)
DATED THIS 7th DAY OF MARCH 2020
SCCH-25
PRESENT: SMT. B.S. RAYANNAWAR, B.A., L.L.B.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT
M.V.C No.634/2019
PETITIONERS: 1. Smt.Lakshmamma
W/o Mohan Kumar
Aged about 57 years.
2. Smt. Subbamma
W/o Late Venkata Rao,
Aged about 70 years.
Residing at:
E/148, 7th Main,
Abbigere Main Road,
Near Govt. School,
K.G.Halli,
Bangalore - 560 015.
(Sri. M.G.R. Advocate)
VS
RESPONDENTS: 1. KGID
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi
Next to High Court,
Bangalore,
(By Sri.M.N.K.........Advocate)
2 MVC 634/2019
SCCH-25
2. Assistant Commissioner (AC)
Doddaballapura,
Bangalore Rural District.
(Exparte)
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of M.V. Act against the Respondent claiming compensation of Rs.60,00,000/ for the death of the husband of Petitioner No.1 and son of Petitioner No.2 n the accident that occurred on 10.12.2018.
2) The brief facts of the Petitioner case as averred in the petition are as under:
That on 10.2.2018 at about 6.30 pm deceased was a pedestrian while he was pushing his bicycle cautiously on the left side of the road near MES Gate (IAF) Bangalore Bellary Main Raod, at that time a Mahindra TUV300 Car bearing Reg.No.KA43G6777, which belongs to Respondent No.2 herein, driven by its driver drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and dashed the Bicycle which the deceased was proceeding. Due to the impact of the accident he fell down and sustained severe head injury and 3 MVC 634/2019 SCCH-25 injuries to all over the body.
Immediately after the accident he was taken to Govt. Hospital at Devanahalli, from there shifted to Victoria Hospital before reached the hospital he succumbed to injuries.
At the time of accident deceased was hale and healthy and he was working as Mason in Military Engineering Service (MES) Yelahanka. By that he was drawing a salary of Rs.55,000/ per month, the deceased was only a bread winner in his family, due to the untimely death entire family of the deceased is put to great financial loss and mental agony.
The accident in question was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the offending vehicle Mahindra TUV300 Car bearing Reg. No.KA43G6777, hence the Yelahanka Traffic Police have registered a case against the driver of the said offending vehicle u/s 279 & 304(A) of IPC. The 1 st Respondent being the insurer and the 2nd Respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners. Therefore, they prayed for allowing the petition.4 MVC 634/2019
SCCH-25
3) In spite of due service of notice the Respondent No.2 did not appear hence placed exparte. After service of notice, Respondent No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement.
It has further disputed the manner of the accident, age of the deceased and quantum of the compensation claimed under different heads. It has further contended that, the alleged accident occurred not due to the negligent act of the offending vehicle but due to sole contributory negligence act of the deceased. Hence, it has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4) On the basis of the above rival pleadings, the following issues have been framed:
1. Whether Petitioners prove that, the husband of 1st Petitioner & son of Petitioner No.2 namely Mohan Kumar Rao succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 10.12.2018 at about 6.30 p.m, Opp MES Gate near IAF, BB Road, Bangalore, when he was a pedestrian, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra TUV 300 Car bearing Reg.NO.KA43 G6777 by its driver?
2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, how much and from whom ? 5 MVC 634/2019
SCCH-25
3. What order or award?
5) To prove the Petitioners case, Petitioner No.1 filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and examined as PW.1. Besides her evidence, she has produced 12 documents and got them marked as Ex.P.1 to 12. Mr.Chethan - Admn. Asst. at Garission Engineer (AF) examined as PW.2 (evidence discarded) and produced 6 documents as per Exs.P.13 to P.18. Gautham Kumar - Admn. Asst. at Garission Engineer (AF) examined as PW.3 and produced 2 documents as per Exs.P.19 & P.20. On the other hand the Respondents did not examined any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf.
6) Heard arguments of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the Respondent.
The Petitioner has produced the following citations:
1. SC 1998 Helen Complainant Rebello Vrs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation.
2. 2008 ACJ 1107 (SC) Lal Devi & Others Vrs. Himachal Road 6 MVC 634/2019 SCCH-25 Transport Corporation and Another.
3. 2009 ACJ 1995 Meghawati Vrs. RAjaram Yadav & Others.
4. SC 2018 Sebastiani Lakra & Others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., & Another.
7) My answers to the above said issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 Partly in the Affirmative; Issue No.2 Partly in the Affirmative; Issue No.3 As per final order, for the following :
:REASONS:
8) ISSUE No.1: It is the case of the PW.1 that, on 10.2.2018 at about 6.30 pm deceased was a pedestrian while he was pushing his bicycle cautiously on the left side of the road near MES Gate (IAF) Bangalore Bellary Main Raod, at that time a Mahindra TUV300 Car bearing Reg.No.KA43G6777, which belongs to Respondent No.2 herein, driven by its driver drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and dashed the Bicycle which the deceased was proceeding. Due to the impact of the accident he fell down and sustained severe head injury and injuries to all over the body.
Immediately after the accident he was taken to Govt. Hospital 7 MVC 634/2019 SCCH-25 at Devanahalli, from there shifted to Victoria Hospital before reached the hospital he succumbed to injuries.
9) To prove their case Petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 filed her affidavit in lieu of her examination in chief. PW.1 produced FIR & complaint, charge sheet, spot mahazar, IMV report, inquest mahazar & PM report as per Exs.P.1 to P.5 & P.9. Kiran Kumar G - RO Oxygen Media Services Pvt., Ltd., has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1 on the basis of which Yelahanka Police have registered case in crime No.238/2018, police have conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.3. To show that the husband of the Petitioner died in an accident Petitioners have produced Ex.P.5 inquest and Ex.P.9 P.M report. All these documents show that there is an accident in which the husband of first Petitioner died.
10) During the course of crossexamination of PW.1 deposed that accident occurred near the ofiice of the deeeased. Her husband died before she reached hospital. It is denied suggesstion that her husband without observing the moving vehicles on the road tried to 8 MVC 634/2019 SCCH-25 cross the national high way road. Hence accident occurred due to negligence by her husband and not by the negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. Further deposed that prior to accident her husband was getting Rs.70,000/ per month. Admittedly PW.1 is not an witness to the incident. But PW.1 denied accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Moreover after investigation police filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. And respondent also not lead any evidence to rebut the case of the petitioner. hence it shows that, the accident occurred by negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, Hence, issue No.1 answered in in the Affirmative.
11) ISSUE No.2: According to the Petitioners, they are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. To prove the same, Petitioners have produced copy of Adhar cards as per Exs.P.10 & 11, police papers reveals that petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased.
12) Due to the untimely death of the deceased, they lost their 9 MVC 634/2019 SCCH-25 dependency. It has come in the evidence of PW.1 that, the deceased was working as Mason at Military Engineering Service and he was earning Rs.55,000/ p.m. The Petitioners examined the employer Mr.Goutam Kumar as PW.3 and produced Exs.P.13 to P.20. Who deposed that the deceased Late Mr.Mohan Kumar Rao was worked with an unblemished record without any remarks on his job and he has produced letter of authorization, ID Card of Mr.Gautham Kumar, Service Records, Attendance for a period of 6 months and pay slips 6 months. During cross examination PW.3 deposed that the deceased was permanent employee and his service number is MES133808, deceased was working as a Mason and was appointed on 01.02.1983. and deceaed was getting basic salary of Rs.38,600/ per month. During cross examination PW.3 deposed that the family members of the deceased have received death benefit of Rs.25,16,558/. Hence it shows that at the time of accident, deceased was drawing salary of Rs.38,600/p.m. However, considering the nature of avocation, age of the deceased and year of accident, I constrain to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.38,600/ per month. Hence, considering the date of accident, to 10 MVC 634/2019 SCCH-25 assess the loss of dependency this court is taken income of the deceased at Rs.38,600/ per month. As per Adhar Card at Ex.P.10 the age of the deceased was 59 years. Hence, the age of deceased is considered as 59 years to assess loss of dependency, the proper multiplier would be 9 as per Sarla Verma Case. Petitioner No.1 lost her husband, and the Petitioner No.2 has lost her son. Under the circumstances as per the Decision reported in Supreme court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014, (National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Others), it is just and reasonable to award Rs.15,000/, Rs.40,000/ and Rs.15,000/ under the heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses respectively. Petitioners received death benefit of Rs.25,16,558/. Hence learned counsel for the petitioner relied on citation reported in (i) SC 1998 Helen C Rebello Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Another held that "Hence, provident fund, family pension, cash balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc., cannot termed as "
peuniary advantages" for the purposes of motor vehicles act - Legislative intent and beneficial character of the 11 MVC 634/2019 SCCH-25 legislation taken into account for interpreting the provision
- Distinction between the language of fatal accidents act 1855 on the one hand and S.110B of motor vehicles Act 1939 and S.168(1) of motor vehicles Act, 1988 on the other".
(ii) 2008 ACJ 1107 (SC) Lal Devi & Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport corporation and another held that "Quantum - deductions - family pension - whether family pension amount is deductible while computing dependency of the claimants - held: no; heirs receive family pension even otherwise than due to accidental death. {1990 ACJ 10 (SC) followed)".
(iii) 2009 ACJ 1995 Meghawati Vs. Rajaram Yadav & Others held that "Quantum - fatal accident - principles of assessment - pension - whether pension payable to widow has to be taken into consideration while assessing dependency of the claimants - held: no, (1999 ACJ 10(SC), 1985 ACJ 75 (SC), 2006 ACJ 406 (Delhi), 2000 ACJ 935 (P&H) and 2005 ACJ 1131 (SC) relied}". 12 MVC 634/2019
SCCH-25
(iv) SC 2018 Sebastiani Lakra and others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., & Another held that "quantum - deductions - employee's family benefit scheme - whether amount received by the legal heirs of the deceased under employee's family benefit scheme (EFB scheme) be deducted while computing loss of income
- held;no; under FEB scheme the nominee or legal heirs of the deceased employees have to deposit the entire amount of gratuity and all other benefits payable to them on the death of employee; amount is paid to the legal heirs under the FEB Scheme only till the date of retirement of the deceased and since payment will cease thereafter, the amount payable under the FEB scheme is not to be deducted. Quantum - fatal accident - deceased aged 52, drawing Rs.58,565 p.m - claimants; family members - Tribunal assessed income at Rs.50,000 pm., deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses, adopted multiplier of 11 and awarded Rs.40,90,000 - High court without assigning any reasons reduced the award to Rs.36,00,000 - Apex Court assessed income at Rs.58,565 p.m., deducted Rs.2,565 p.m, for income tax and 1/3rd for personal expenses, assessed dependency at Rs.4,47,996 p.a., adopted multiplier of 11 and allowed Rs.49,27,956 plus Rs.15,000 for loss of estate. Rs/40,000 for loss of consortium and 13 MVC 634/2019 SCCH-25 Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses - award of Rs.36,00,000 enhanced to Rs.50,00,000. Hence the citation furnished by Petitioner are applicable to the case on hand.
13) Hence the amount received by the Petitioners is death benefit. Hence can not be deducted. Income of the deceased is already considered as Rs.38,600/ per month. Deceased was a permanent employee. Hence If 15% is added towards future prospectus to the income of the deceased it would comes at Rs.44,390/ (Rs.38,600/ + Rs.5,790/). The Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the dependents of the deceased . Hence, if 1/3 rd is deducted out of Rs.44,390/ then it would comes to Rs.29,594/ per month (Rs.44,390/ - Rs.14,796/). Since the deceased was aged about 59 years, the proper multiplier would be 9 as per the ruling reported in:
2009 ACJ 1298 Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation. So, the loss of dependency would be Rs.29,594/ x 12 X 9 = Rs.31,96,152/.
14) Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for total compensation under different heads as below: 14 MVC 634/2019 SCCH-25 1 For loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/ 2 For loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/ 3 For funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/ 4 For Loss of Dependency Rs.31,96,152/ Total Rs.32,66,152/
15) While discussing above, I have already come to the conclusion that, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra TUV300 Car bearing Reg.No.KA43G 6777. Hence, in view of above discussions Respondents are liable to pay compensation of Rs.32,66,152/ to the Petitioners along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. So, I answered issue No.2 partly in the affirmative.
16) ISSUE No.3: In view of the findings given on the above said issues and reasons thereon, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Petition filed by the Petitioners u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs. 15 MVC 634/2019
SCCH-25 Accordingly, a sum of Rs.32,66,152/ is awarded to the Petitioners as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation amount, Rs.3,00,000/ shall be apportioned in favour of Petitioner No.2, and remaining amount of Rs.29,66,152/ shall be apportioned in favor of the Petitioner No.1.
Out of compensation amount apportioned in favour of Petitioner No.2 entire amount shall be released in favor of the Petitioner No.2 and the amount apportioned in favor of the Petitioner No.1, 25% shall be deposited in the name of Petitioner No.1, for a period of 3 years in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank and the remaining 75% shall be released in favour of Petitioner No.1, through epayment on proper identification. 16 MVC 634/2019
SCCH-25 Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Office to draw award accordingly. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 7th day of March 2020) (B.S.RAYANNAWAR) C/C XXIII ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONERS:
PW.1 Lakshmamma PW.2 Chethan.A. PW.3 Gautam Kumar
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.P.1 FIR & complaint
Ex.P.2 Charge sheet
Ex.P.3 Spot panchanama
Ex.P.4 IMV report
Ex.P.5 Inquest report
Ex.P.6 to 8 Statement of witnesses (3)
Ex.P.9 PM report
Ex.P.10 & 11 Notarised copy of Adhar cards (2)
Ex.P.12 Notarised copy of Election ID card
Ex.P.13 Authorisation letter
17 MVC 634/2019
SCCH-25
Ex.P.14 I.D.Card
Ex.P.15 Death certificate
Ex.P.16 Copy of service book
Ex.P. 17 Copy of attendance document
for last 6 months
Ex.P.18 Pay slip
Ex.P.19 Authorisation letter
Ex.P.20 Notarised copy of ID card
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Nil DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Nil C/C XXIII ADDL. SCJ.& ACMM 18 MVC 634/2019 SCCH-25 (Judgment pronounced in open court) ORDER Petition filed by the Petitioners u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.32,66,152/ is awarded to the Petitioners as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order.19 MVC 634/2019
SCCH-25 In the event of deposit of the said compensation amount, Rs.3,00,000/ shall be apportioned in favour of Petitioner No.2, and remaining amount of Rs.29,66,152/ shall be apportioned in favor of the Petitioner No.1.
Out of compensation amount apportioned in favour of Petitioner No.2 entire amount shall be released in favor of the Petitioner No.2 and the amount apportioned in favor of the Petitioner No.1, 25% shall be deposited in the name of Petitioner No.1, for a period of 3 years in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank and the remaining 75% shall be released in favour of Petitioner No.1, through epayment on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Office to draw award accordingly.
C/C XXIIIADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE 20 MVC 634/2019 SCCH-25 AWARD SCCH NO.25 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY M.V.C No.634/2019 PETITIONERS: 1. Smt.Lakshmamma W/o Mohan Kumar Aged about 57 years.
2. Smt. Subbamma W/o Late Venkata Rao, Aged about 70 years.
Residing at:
E/148, 7th Main, Abbigere Main Road, Near Govt. School, K.G.Halli, Bangalore - 560 015.
(Sri. M.G.R. Advocate) VS RESPONDENTS: 1. KGID Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi Next to High Court, Bangalore, (By Sri.M.N.K.........Advocate)
2. Assistant Commissioner (AC) Doddaballapura, Bangalore Rural District.
(Exparte) 21 MVC 634/2019 SCCH-25 WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Petitioner/s above named U/sec.110A/166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs. (Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the Petitioner/Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. .
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.B.S.Rayannawar, I Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent.
ORDER Petition filed by the Petitioners u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.32,66,152/ is awarded to the Petitioners as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners. 22 MVC 634/2019
SCCH-25 The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation amount, Rs.3,00,000/ shall be apportioned in favour of Petitioner No.2, and remaining amount of Rs.29,66,152/ shall be apportioned in favor of the Petitioner No.1.
Out of compensation amount apportioned in favour of Petitioner No.2 entire amount shall be released in favor of the Petitioner No.2 and the amount apportioned in favor of the Petitioner No.1, 25% shall be deposited in the name of Petitioner No.1, for a period of 3 years in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank and the remaining 75% shall be released in favour of Petitioner No.1, through epayment on proper identification. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2020.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
23 MVC 634/2019
SCCH-25 By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0100 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs.
____________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR 24 MVC 634/2019 SCCH-25 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU (SCCH25) DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 MVC No.634/2019 PETITIONER/S: Smt.Lakshmamma & others V/s RESPONDENT/S: KGID & Another ISSUES
1. Whether Petitioners prove that, the husband of 1st Petitioner & son of Petitioner No.2 namely Mohan Kumar Rao succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 10.12.2018 at about 6.30 p.m, Opp MES Gate near IAF, BB Road, Bangalore, when he was a pedestrian, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra TUV 300 Car bearing Reg.NO.KA43 G6777 by its driver?
2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, how much and from whom ?
3. What order or award?
C/C M.A.C.T. BANGALORE 25 MVC 634/2019 SCCH-25