Bangalore District Court
In 1. Kum.J.M.Nishchitha vs In All 1. Mr.Shaik Farid Ur Rahaman P on 21 November, 2016
SCCH- 13 1- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH.13)
DATE: THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016.
PRESENT :
SMT.PANCHAKSHARI M., M.Com., LL.B.
II Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
M.V.C.Nos.3063, 3064 & 3065 of 2015.
Petitioners in 1. Kum.J.M.Nishchitha, 5 years,
MVC.3063 and D/o Late J.V.Manjunatha,
3064/2015:
2. Smt.Parvathamma, 57 years,
W/o Venkateshappa J.G.,
3. Sri.Venkateshappa, 60 years,
S/o Late Govindappa,
(Deleted since dead)
Since, petitioner No.1 is minor,
represented by her grand mother-
2nd petitioner as natural guardian.
All are R/at Jambigemaradahalli
village, Somenahalli Post,
Godibande Taluk,
Chikkaballapura Dist.
Petitioners in 1.Smt.Aruna Kumari G.K.,
MVC.3065/2015: W/o Late Govindaraju, 20 years,
SCCH- 13 2- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
2. Kum.Sneha, 2 years
D/o Late Govindaraju,
3. Smt.Parvathamma, 57 years,
W/o Venkateshappa J.G.,
4. Sri.Venkateshappa, 60 years,
S/o Late Govindappa,
(Deleted since dead)
5. Kum.J.G.Bhanusri, 5 months,
D/o late Gonvindappa,
Since, petitioner No.2 and 5 are
minors, represented by their
mother/ natural guardian-
Smt.Aruna Kumar G.K.,
1st petitioner.
All are R/at Jambigemaradahalli
village, Somenahalli Post,
Godibande Taluk,
Chikkaballapura Dist.
(By Pleader Sri.Manjunath N.)
-Vs-
Respondents in all 1. Mr.Shaik Farid UR Rahaman P.,
the three cases: S/o Abdul Samad, major in age,
R/at No.660/2,
Pillanna Garden 2nd stage,
Water Tank main road,
Near Jolley Ice Cream Factory,
Nagawara,
Bengaluru-560 045.
(Exparte)
SCCH- 13 3- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
2. The Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd.,
Regional Office, No.28,
5th floor, East Wing,
Centenary Building,
M.G.Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri.Betsur, Advocate)
-o0o-
COMMON JUDGEMENT
The petitioners have filed these three petitions
under Sec.166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on
account of the death of Sri.Manjunatha J.V. and
Sri.Gonvindaraju, both are sons of Venkateshappa J.G.
and Smt.Manasa, Wife of Sri.Manjunatha J.V. in the
motor vehicle accident.
2.MVC. 3063/2015 is clubbed with MVC.3064/2015
and 3065/2015 as per order dated: 25.4.2016 wherein
MVC.3063/2015 is considered as the main case for
recording evidence and disposal by a common judgment.
SCCH- 13 4- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
Hence, the facts in all the three cases are narrated as
follows:
3. The brief facts of the petitioner's case in all the
cases:
On 05/04/2015, Sri.Manjunatha J.V. was
proceeding on his Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-EU-
8885 along with his wife-Smt.Manasa and his brother-
Sri.Govindaraju as pillion riders, towards Peresandra from
his Village-Jambigemaradahalli-NH-7 road and when they
reached near Singanahalli cross of Gudibande Taluk that
time at about 5.30 p.m., a Car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-ML-
8543 came from same direction i.e. from Bagepalli side,
driven by its driver at high speed, in a rash and negligent
manner, lost control over the vehicle, went to its wrong
side of the road and dashed violently against the motor
cycle of Manjunatha J.V. from behind. Due to impact,
Manjunatha, his wife and brother fell down and sustained
injuries. The wife of Manjunatha-Smt.Manasa succumbed
to the injuries at the spot and Manjunatha and his
brother-Govindaraju were shifted to to Govt.Hospital,
SCCH- 13 5- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
Chikkaballapura, after first aid treatment, they were
referred to M.S.Ramaiah hospital, Bengaluru, wherein
Manjunatha succumbed to the said injuries on the same
day at about 7.30 p.m. and Govindaraju succumbed to the
injury during the course of treatment i.e. on 08.04.2015
at about 1 a.m.
The Gudibande Police have filed a case against the
driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-ML-8543 in
Cr.No.69/2015 for the offences punishable under Sec.279,
337 and 304(A) of IPC.
It is contended in MVC.No.3063/15, that prior to the
accident, deceased-Manjunath J.V. was hale and healthy
and aged about 38 years at the time of his death. He was
a Teacher in Govt. Higher Primary School, Somenahalli
Village, Gudibande Taluk, Chikkaballapura Dist. and
getting salary of Rs.25,500/- p.m.
In MVC.No.3065/14, the deceased Manasa who has
done M.A. in English language and B.Ed. , working as a
SCCH- 13 6- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
School Teacher at Varalakonda Village and post,
Gudibande Taluk, Chikkaballapura Dist and getting salary
of Rs.6,800/- p.m.
In MVC.No.3064/15, the deceased-Govindaraju was
aged about 33 years at the time of his death and he was
working as a Milk Tester at his Village-KMF (Kochimul)
Dairy everyday the morning and evening and was earning
Rs.1,700/- p.m. He is also working as a artificial
inseminator and fertility examiner of cattle in the above
said dairy and getting salary of Rs.1,800/- p.m. and a
commission of about Rs.15,000/- p.m. He was also
working as a Coordinator in "Janani Vikalachethanara
Keshmabhivruddi Sangha at this village and earning
Rs.1,500/- p.m. and Rs.5,000/- p.m. by pursuing
agriculture, totally, in all he was earning more than
Rs.25,000/- p.m.
It is contended that due to untimely death of
deceased, they are put to lot of mental agony and untold
misery . They were entirely depending upon the earnings
of the deceased. They spent Rs.1,00,000/- and
Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment, medicine,
SCCH- 13 7- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
transportation of dead body and funeral obsequies and the
petitioner in MVC.No.3064/15 have spent Rs.50,000/-
towards transportation of dead body, funeral and
obsequies. The respondent No.1 being the RC owner and
the respondent No.2 being the insure of the said Car are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence,
petitioners in all the cases have claimed compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- in MVC.No.3063/15 and Rs.30,00,000/-
each in MVC.No.3064/15 and 3065/15 from the
respondents with costs and interest from the date of filing
the petition till realization. On the above grounds, they
prayed for allowing the petitions.
4. In response to the notices, respondent No.1-RC
Owner of the Car in all the cases remained absent and he
placed exparte. Respondent No.1-Insurance company in
all the case placed its appearance through its counsel and
filed written statement with the following contentions:-
2nd Respondent/Insurance company denied all the
averments in the petitions with regard to the rash and
SCCH- 13 8- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
negligent driving of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-ML-
8543 by its driver and contended that there were three
persons proceeding on the Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
05-EU-8885 and the sitting capacity of the motor cycle is
only two. The alleged accident is caused only due to rash
and negligent riding of the motor cycle by its rider, who
had lost control over the vehicle, due to over load and got
caused the accident. If the rider was careful and vigilant,
he would have avoided the accident. There is no fault on
the part of the driver of the Car. The accident was caused
only due to rash and negligent riding on the part of the
rider of the motor cycle who was not having valid driving
licence and policy as on the date of accident. It has
denied for having insured the said car with it . It has
disputed the age, income and avocation of the deceased
and spending of the amount towards medical treatment of
deceased in MVC.No.3063/15 and 3064/15. It has also
contended that the compensation claimed in the petitions
are highly excessive, arbitrary and disproportionate,
therefore, the instant petitions may be dismissed.
SCCH- 13 9- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
5. On the basis of the above rival contentions of the
parties, the following issues are framed:-
IN MVC.NO.3063/2015
1. Whether petitioners prove that they are the Legal
Representatives of the deceased Sri.Manjunath
J.V.?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, deceased
succumbed to the injuries sustained in RTA on
05.04.2015 at about 5.30 p.m. involving Car ?
3. Whether respondent proves that the accident had
occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of
the deceased ?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as claimed? If so, to what extent?
5. What order or Award?
IN MVC.NO.3064/2015
1. Whether petitioners prove that they are the Legal
Representatives of the deceased-Smt.Manasa, w/o
of Manjunatha J.V. ?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, deceased
succumbed to the injuries sustained in RTA on
05.04.2015 at about 5.30 p.m. involving Car ?
3. Whether respondent proves that the accident had
occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of
the deceased ?
SCCH- 13 10
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as claimed? If so, to what extent?
5. What order or Award?
IN MVC.NO.3065/2015
1. Whether petitioners prove that they are the Legal
Representatives of the deceased Sri.Govindaraju,
son of Venkateshappa J.G. ?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, deceased
succumbed to the injuries sustained in RTA on
05.04.2015 at about 5.30 p.m. involving Car ?
3. Whether respondent proves that the accident had
occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of
the deceased ?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as claimed? If so, to what extent?
5. What order or Award?
6. The petitioner NO.2 in MVC.Nos.3063/15,
3065/14 and two witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 4
and got marked the documents Ex.P.1 to P.32. The 2nd
respondent examined its official as RW1 and got marked
copy of Insurance policy as Ex.R1.
SCCH- 13 11
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
7. Heard arguments.
8. Taking into consideration, the oral and
documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal, my
findings to the issues framed in all the three cases are as
under:-
Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Issue No.3: In the negative
Issue No.4: Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.5: As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 in all the three cases:-
Claimants No.1 to 3 in MVC.No.3063/15 and
3064/15 are before this tribunal seeking compensation in
the capacity of legal heirs of the deceased-Manjunath J.V.
and Manasa. 2nd petitioner who is the mother of the
deceased-Manjunath J.V. and Govindaraju is examined
as PW.1 and filed her affidavit stating that 1st petitioner is
her minor grand daughter, 3rd petitioner is her husband
SCCH- 13 12
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
who is no more. They are claiming compensation for the
death of her son-Manjunatha J.V. and her daughter in
law-N.Manasa. The respondent NO.2 has not seriously
disputed their relationship or status as LRs of the
deceased. The names and above relationship of the
petitioners in both the cases with the deceased are
reflected in ExP.9,Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 are the Notarised
copies of Ration Card, Voter's ID of the deceased-Manasa
and Adhaar card of 2nd petitioner.
10. The petitioner No.1 to 4 in MVC.No.3065/15
seeking compensation in the capacity of the legal heirs of
Deceased-Govindaraju. 1st petitioner who is the wife of
the deceased filed her affidavit, stating that the petitioners
No.2 and 5 are her children and 3rd petitioner is her
mother in law and 4th petitioner is her father in law who is
no more. To prove their relationship, petitioner No.1 has
producedExs.P26 and P27 -notarized copies of ration card
and Birth certificate of petitioner No.5.
SCCH- 13 13
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
11. Since, there is no evidence to the contrary led by
the respondent No.2 and there are no rival claimants, the
above material is suffice to hold that they are the LRs of
the deceased. Hence, I hold Issue No.1 in all the three
cases in the Affirmative.
12. Issue Nos.2 in MVC.No.3063, 3064 & 3065/15:
All these three cases are clubbed together and
common evidence is recorded in all the three cases.
Petitioner No.1 in MVC.No.3603/15 is the daughter,
petitioners No.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased
Manjunath J.V.
Petitioner No.1 in MVC.No.3604/15 is the daughter
and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the in laws of the deceased
N.Manasa who is the wife of the deceased-Manjunath J.V.
13. Petitioner No.1 in MVC.No.3605/15 is the wife,
petitioners No.2 and 5 are the children and petitioners
No.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased-Govindaraju.
During the pendency of the case, the father of the
Manjunath J.V. and Govindaraju and father in law of the
SCCH- 13 14
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
deceased Manasa N., having denied and lateron he had
been deleted from the case. As per the petitions
averments, deceased Manjunath J.V. and Govindaraju are
brothers. On 05.04.2015, deceased Manjunath J.V.,
Govindaraju and Manasa N. were proceeding towards
Peresandra from their Village-Jambigemaradahalli,
Gudibande taluk, Chikkaballapura Dist, on Bagepalli-
Chikkaballapura NH-7 road by riding a motor cycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-05-EU-8885. At that time, the
deceased-Manjunath J.V. was riding the motor cycle and
his wife-Manasa and brother-Govindaraju were traveling
as a pillion riders, they are going slowly and cautiously on
the correct side of the road and at about 5.30 p.m. when
they reached near Singanahalli Cross of Gudibande Taluk,
one Car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-ML-8543 came from the
same direction i.e. from Bagepalli side , driven by its driver
at high speed in a rash and negligent manner lost control
over the vehicle, went to its wrong side of the road and
dashed violently against the motor cycle which was being
ridded by Manjunath J.V. from behind. Due to the said
impact, the rider and pillion riders fell down and
SCCH- 13 15
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
sustained grievous injuries. Pillion rider-Manasa
succumbed to the injuries at the spot and the rider-
Manjunath J.V. and his brother Govindaraju were shifted
to Govt. Hospital, Chikkaballapura, after first aid, they
were shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein
they succumbed to the injuries during the course of
treatment. So, as per the contentions of the petitioners in
all the three cases that the alleged accident took place due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-04-ML-8543 .
14. Respondent No.1 is the RC owner and 2nd
respondent is the insurer of the said Car, whereby
respondent No.1 remained absent in all the three cases
and he placed exparte. The respondent No.2-insurer had
appeared through its counsel and filed written statement
in all the three cases, wherein it had denied the petition
averments with regard to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-ML-8543. As per
its contention, three persons were proceeding on a motor
cycle and sitting capacity of the motor cycle is only two.
SCCH- 13 16
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
The alleged accident is caused only due to rash and
negligent riding on the part of the rider of the motor cycle
having lost control over the vehicle due to over load, the
accident is caused. If the rider was careful and vigilant,
he could have avoided the accident. Therefore, there is no
fault on the part of the driver of the car. Further, it is the
contention of the respondent No.2 that the rider of the
motor cycle had rode the motor cycle without having
driving licence and policy as on the date of accident. So,
from the contention of the respondent No.2, whereby it is
urged that there is no fault on the part of the driver of the
car, on the contrary, the alleged accident is due to rash
and negligent riding by the rider of the motor cycle.
15. During the pendency of the proceedings, the
petitioner No.3 in MVC.No.3063/15 and 3064/15 and
petitioner No.4 in MVC.No.3065/15 had died. Petitioner
No.2 in MVC.No.3063 /15 and 3064/14 got herself
examined as PW1. In her affidavit filed for examination in
chief, she had reiterated the petition averments. In her
evidence, she has stated that the petitioner No.1 in both
SCCH- 13 17
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
the cases is her minor grand daughter and the petitioner
No.3 is her husband who is now dead. Further, she had
also stated that the petitioner No.1 in MVC.No.3065/13 is
her daughter in law. In support of her oral evidence, she
had produced documents which are marked as Exs.P1 to
P9 in MVC.No.3063/15 and Exs.P10 to P17 in
MVC.No.3064/15. Exs.P1 to P4 and P7 are common
documents in all the three cases. Ex.P1 is the FIR with
complaint, Ex.P2 is the Mahazar, Ex.P3 is the
Sketch,Ex.P4 is the IMV report and Ex.P7 is the charge
sheet. As per FIR, case is registered against the driver of
the Car and as per Ex.P7-Charge sheet, the driver of the
car is charge sheeted for the offences punishable under
Sec.279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. The death of Manjunatha
J.V., Manasa and Govindaraju on account of accidental
injury sustained is not in dispute. Exs.P6, P11 and P20
are the Post Mortem Report of Manjunath J.V., Manasa
and Govindaraju and as per this report, the death of all
the three persons is on account of accidental injuries
sustained by them in road traffic accident.
SCCH- 13 18
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
16. PW3 is an eyewitness to the incident, who had
stated with regard to the accident. RW1 is the official of
respondent No.2 who had also not disputed that the above
referred three persons having sustained injury in road
traffic accident and thereafter succumbed to the injury.
So, from the oral and documentary evidence placed before
this Tribunal, the petitioners have proved their contention
that the death of Manjunath J.V. in MVC.No.3063/15,
Manasa in MVC.No.3064/15 and Govindaraju in
MVC.No.3065/15 is due to accidental injuries sustained
by them in road traffic accident occurred on 05.04.2015
at about 5.30 p.m. In the circumstance, I hold the above
issue in all the three cases in the Affirmative.
17. Issue No.3 in all the three cases :
The petitioners in all the three cases have taken up a
contention that the alleged accident is due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending Car. On the contrary,
respondent No.2 being insurer, had taken up contention
that the alleged accident had occurred solely due to the
negligence on the part of the deceased as three persons
SCCH- 13 19
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
were proceeding in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-
EC-8885 though the sitting capacity of motor cycle is only
two. It is the specific contention of the respondent No.2
that the rider of the motor cycle lost control over the
vehicle due to over load and got caused the accident by
carrying two pillion riders. There is no fault on the part of
the driver of the Car, so, respondent No.2 had prayed for
dismissal of the petitions.
18. Though, the petitioners in all the three cases
have pleaded that the alleged accident is due to rash and
negligent driving of the car by its driver, who had hit the
back side of the motor cycle which came in a high speed
and having driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner, lost control over the vehicle, went to its wrong
side and dashed against the motor cycle from behind. In
view of the specific plea of the petitioners, the burden is
on the respondents to prove issue No.3 that the accident
had occurred solely due to rash and negligent riding of the
motor cycle by the deceased-Manjunath J.V. The
petitioners in all the three cases have come before the
SCCH- 13 20
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
Tribunal seeking relief of compensation. Petitioners
having filed the petitions under Sec.166 of MV Act, the
burden is on the petitioners to prove that the alleged
accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-04-ML-8543. In the oral evidence of
PW1 and PW2, whereby PW1 being the mother of
deceased-Manjunatha J.V. and Govindaraju and mother
in law of the deceased-Manasa, had clearly stated in her
evidence that the alleged accident is due to rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-04-ML-8543. Apart from that, the
have also opted to examine an eye witness as PW3 who
had stated that on 05.04.2015, he was going towards his
village Jambigemaradahalli from Chikkaballapura, in a
motor cycle as a pillion rider, ridden by its rider-
Hanumanthappa of his village and at about 5.30 p.m.
when they reached near Singanahalli cross on
Chikkaballapura-Bagepalli NH-7 road, said
Hanumanthappa took right turn to go towards their
village. At that time, Govindaraju, Manjunatha and
Manasa of their village were going towards
SCCH- 13 21
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
Chikkaballapura side from their village in a motor cycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-05-U-8885 ridden by Manjunatha
slowly cautiously on the correct side of the road. At that
time, one Renault Duster Car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-ML-
8543 came from Bagepalli side i.e. in the same direction in
a high speed and also in a rash and negligent manner
having lost control over the vehicle went on its wrong side
of the road and dashed against the motor cycle from
behind. Due to the impact, all the three persons
sustained grievous injuries and among them, Manasa died
on the spot. Manjunatha and Govindaraju were taken to
Chikkaballapura Govt. Hospital and after first aid, they
were shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bengaluru. Later
on he came to know that Manjunatha succumbed to the
said injuries on the same day i.e. on 05.04.2015 at about
7.30 p.m. and Govindaraju on 08.04.2015 at 7.30 p.m. In
the cross examination, he had stated that he had not
lodged the police complaint. He had seen the accident
when it took place. He also admitted that there were three
persons in the motor cycle, but he had denied the
suggestion that three persons were talking to each other
SCCH- 13 22
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
and having lost control over the motor cycle, the rider had
hit against the car. Further, he had also denied the
suggestion that as there were three persons in the motor
cycle, due to the negligence of the rider, the alleged
accident took place. So, from the cross examination of
PW3, it is clearly made out that he was at the spot and he
had seen the accident and it was the Duster Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-04-ML-8543 which came from back side of the
motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner had hit the
motor cycle which was being ridden by Manjunath and in
the said accident, all the three persons fell down and
sustained injuries.
19. RW1 being the official of the 2nd respondent-Ins.
Co. though stated in his chief examination that the alleged
accident is due to rash and negligent act of rider of the
motor cycle Bering Reg.No. KA-05-EU-8885, no reliable
evidence is placed before the Tribunal to believe his
version. In the cross examination, he had stated that he
had not produced any documents to show that the
deceased had rode the motor cycle in a rash and negligent
SCCH- 13 23
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
manner. It is his evidence that as the deceased was riding
the motor cycle with two pillion riders. He stated that the
rider was riding it in a rash and negligent manner.
Further, he had admitted that there is no allegation in the
charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle alleging
that he was negligent at the time of accident.
20. Now, coming to the police papers which are
produced on behalf of the petitioners whereby Ex.P7 being
charge sheet is against the driver of the Duster Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-04-ML-8543. As the car had hit the
back portion of the motor cycle, what amount of
negligence can attributed to the driver of the car has to be
assessed only from the police papers by seeing the spot of
the accident. As could be seen in the Mahazar Ex.P2 and
Sketch-Ex.P3. In Ex.P3, the accident spot is shown on the
western edge of the tar road, preceded from
Chikkaballapura towards Singanahalli cross and the said
road is NH-7 which is wide enough with the median.
There was sufficient space for the car to proceed on its
way on the left side of the road. In spite of it, it had
SCCH- 13 24
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
moved western edge and hit the motor cycle on its back.
This itself makes out that the alleged accident had
resulted due to the negligence on the part of the driver of
the car.
21. The counsel on behalf of the petitioners had
submitted in his arguments that when the deceased in
MVC.No.3064/15 was being taken to the hospital in motor
cycle by her husband with the help of his brother -
Govindaraju, the alleged accident took place. But, the
petitioners have not urged this contention in any of the
claim petitions. On the other than, even, PWs.1 and 2
have not stated in their evidence with regard to the fact
that the deceased Manasa was being taken to the
hospital, her husband-Manjunath had taken support of
his brother-Govindaraju so as to proceed to the
hospital. The fact that has to be taken into
consideration is Motor Vehicles Rules which has to be
strictly followed by the rider of the motor cycle. There
can be only one pillion rider and in the present case,
there were two elderly persons who were traveling in
SCCH- 13 25
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
the motor cycle. The rider of the motor cycle should have
taken precautions while accompanying the pillion rider. If
there was so urgent to proceed to the hospital, they could
have taken the assistance of ambulance or other vehicle to
move to the private hospital. To pillion riders who being
elderly persons are not permissible to proceed in the
motor cycle as the motor cycle had some capacity to carry
only as per weight as that of a policy rules.
22. The counsel on behalf of the petitioners had
produced Judgment M.F.A.No.10758/2010 dt.20.06.2013
of our own High Court, wherein it is held that:
"Mere breach of law or duty would not
create a liability to pay damages. Such a
breach of law or duty should result in injury.
The contributory negligence does not depend
upon any break of duty. The breach of duty
should result in injury and consequent
losses".
The above referred case, the deceased was riding the
motor cycle with two persons on the vehicle. So, our
SCCH- 13 26
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
Hon"ble High Court had held that though it amounts to
contravention of Sec.123 of the Act, it does not amount to
a negligent act on the part of the deceased. The breach of
duty result in negligence has to be assessed by the court.
Even, in the present case, the motor cycle was on the
extreme left side of the road and the Duster Car was also
moving in the same direction and the road at the spot is
wide enough for passing two vehicles at a time. In spite of
it, the car had moved behind the motor cycle and the force
of hitting of the car itself makes out the speed and the
rash and negligent driving which had resulted in death of
all the three persons who were traveling in the motor
cycle. So, as held in the above referred judgment, though
there is violation of duty cast on the rider of the motor
cycle, the respondent No.2 had failed to prove its
contention that the alleged accident is solely due to the
negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. In
the circumstances, this tribunal held that the alleged
accident is due to rash and negligent driving by the driver
of the Duster Car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-ML-8543 and the
respondent No.2 had failed to prove its contention. In the
SCCH- 13 27
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
circumstances, the above issue in all the three cases is
answered in the negative.
23. Issue No.4 in MVC.No.3063/15 :- As the
petitioners have proved Issue Nos.1 and 2 and the
involvement of the offending Duster Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-04-ML-8543 which belongs to 1st respondent
and it was insured with 2nd respondent, the petitioners
are entitled for a compensation from the respondents
jointly and severally to the quantum arrived as below:
(i) TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY AND
FUNERAL EXPENSES:
The accident took place at Bagepalli-
Chikkaballapura NH-4 road, whereby, the petitioners are
the residence of Jambigemaradahalli, Somenahalli Post,
Gudibande Taluk, Chikkaballapur and after the accident,
the injured was taken to Govt.Hospital, Chikkaballapura,
after first , he was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Bengaluru, wherein he succumbed to the said injuries
during the course of treatment on the same day at about
SCCH- 13 28
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
7.30 p.m. Post Mortem was conducted at Govt.Hospital at
Chikkabappaur and death body has been brought to the
place of their native place and funeral and obsequies was
conducted So, taking into consideration of this fact, it is
reasonable to hold that the petitioners are entitled for a
sum of Rs.25,000/- under the above head..
(ii) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
Deceased-Manjunath J.V. was aged about 38 years
and was a permanent employee of Govt. of Karnataka,
working as a Teacher in Govt. Higher Primary School,
Somenahalli Village, Gudibande Taluk, Chikkaballapura
Dist. and getting salary of Rs.25,500/- p.m. It is also
pleaded that he was getting annual increments and rise
in pay scale regularly. In future, he was eligible for time
bound promotions and hike in salary, if he was alive. The
petitioners were entirely depending upon the income of the
deceased. In order to substantiate the petition averments,
the mother of the deceased had been examined as PW1
and she has reiterated the petition averments with regard
to the profession and income of the deceased. The Pay
SCCH- 13 29
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
slip of the deceased is marked as Ex.P8. In order to
further prove the contention of the petitioner, PW4-
Education Co-Originator at BEO Office, Gudibande,
Department of Public Instruction, is examined. He had
stated in his evidence that the deceased-Manjunath J.V.
was working as Assistant Master in their Department at
Government Higher Primary School, Somenahalli,
Gudibande Taluk, Chikkaballapur Dist and he was a
permanent employee. As per his Service book, he died on
05.04.2015 and at the time of his death, his monthly
gross salary was Rs.25,489/-. He was appointed on
06.01.1999 as Asst. Master on a basic pay of Rs.3,300/-
p.m. Thereafter, he was regularly given annual increments
and he was also received ten years Special increment on
06.01.2015. Further, it is stated that if the deceased was
alive, he would have received a gross salary of Rs.28,590/-
p.m. and he is entitled for time bound promotions and
regular increments. He had also produced attested copies
of pay slip and Service book which are marked as
Exs.P.29 and P30. Later he has also produced Income
SCCH- 13 30
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
Tax Returns of the deceased for the assessment year
2015-2016 and the same is marked as Ex.P31.
By the evidence of PW4 and also supporting
documents i.e. Service Register and the Pay slip clearly
makes out that the deceased was Govt. Employee working
as a Asst. Teacher and his gross salary in the month of
March, 2015 was Rs.25,489/-. To make out whether he is
liable for Tax, Ex.P31 i.e. Income Tax Returns and Ex.P32-
Pan Card is produced and as per Ex.P31, the annual
income of the deceased-Manjunath J.V. is Rs.2,79,931/-,
wherein permissible deduction is Rs.39,936/-, so the
liable tax from his salary is nil as it is only Rs.2,37,995/-
as the taxable limit in the year 2015 is Rs.2,50,000/-. So,
the gross salary of the deceased for the month of March
2015 of the deceased is Rs.25,489/- and after deduction
of profession tax of Rs.200/-, the net salary of the
deceased comes to Rs.25,289/-. As per Ex.P30- the
Service Register of the deceased, his date of birth is shown
as 10.06.1977. The accident took place on 05.04.2015, as
SCCH- 13 31
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
such, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about
38 years.
The counsel on behalf of the petitioner had relied on
the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1441, wherein it is held
as follows:
" Quantum-Fatal Accident-Deceased aged 281/2,
Assistant Engineer in State PWD., drawing Rs.8.920/-
p.m.-Claimants: Widow, minor daughter and mother aged
55-Tribunal's award of Rs.14,93,700/- upheld by High
Court-Apex court taking into consideration future
prospects assessed income at Rs.18,000/- p.m.
dependency at Rs.12,000/- p.m. adopted multiplier of 17
and allowed Rs.24,48,000/- plus Rs.1,00,000/- for the
loss of consortium and loss of estate, Rs.2,00,000/- to
daughter and Rs.1,00,000/- each to widow and mother for
loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- for funeral
expenses-Award of Rs.14,93,700/- enhanced to
Rs.29,73,000/-.
Quantum -Deduction-provident fund, pension and
insurance-Whether amount received under provident
fund, pension and insurance are pecuniary advantage
within the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and are liable
for deduction-geld: No."
SCCH- 13 32
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
As per the above referred decision, the provident
fund, pension and insurance are pecuniary advantage
within the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and are not
liable for deduction. So, it is the actual income of the
deceased is less than the income if liable has to be taken
into consideration for the calculation of loss of income.
So, the monthly income of the deceased is at Rs.25,289/-
p.m. Hence, this Tribunal feels to take monthly income of
the deceased at Rs.25,289/- p.m. or Rs.3,03,368/- p.a.
In the recent decision reported in Rajesh vs. Rajbir
Singh - 2013 ACJ 1403 Hon'ble Apex court had added
30% of actual income for persons for age group between
40 to 50 years
Relevant para of the said decision reads thus:
Quantum-fatal accident - principles of
assessment-future prospects-Whether
formula for increase of income for future
prospects adopted for persons with
permanent jobs in Sarla Verma's case, 2009
ACJ 1298 (SC), may also be applied to
SCCH- 13 33
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
persons who were self employed or were
engaged on fixed wages - Held: yes; 50 per
cent of actual income (after deduction of tax)
for persons below 40 years; 30 per cent for
age group of 40 to 50 years; 15 percent for
age group of 50 to 60 years; but no addition
thereafter.
Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2015 AIR SCW
3105 -(MunnaLal Jain and another -vs- Vipin Kumar
Sharma and others): wherein it is held that:
Quantum - Fatal accident-Principles of
assessment-Future prospects-Deceased aged 30
and self employed as Pandit-Whether addition of
50 percent of income of the deceased be made in
his actual income for the purpose of computing
compensation-Held-yes.
Quantum - Fatal accident-Deceased aged
30, self employed as Pandit-Claimants:parents-
Tribunal awarded Rs.6,59,000/--High Court
assessed income at Rs.12,000/- p.m. added 30
percent towards future prospects, deducted
50% for personal expenses, adopted multiplier
of 13 and awarded Rs.12,61,800/-- Apex court
added 50 percent towards future prospects,
deducted 50 percent for personal expenses,
SCCH- 13 34
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
adopted multiplier of 17 and allowed
Rs.18,36,000/- towards loss of dependency and
enhanced the award to Rs.18,81,000/- ''.
In the instant case deceased was aged about 38
years and as per the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the persons who are self employed or
employed on fixed wages age group of below 40 years age
are entitle an addition 50% to the income of the deceased.
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for additional 50% of
total income towards future prospects. Annual income
works out at Rs.3,03,468/- + Rs.1,51,734/- (i.e 50% of
annual income). Hence, Rs.4,55,202/- would be the yearly
loss of dependency to the petitioners.
Admittedly, the deceased has left behind petitioners
No.1 to 4 as his legal heirs. 1st petitioner is the minor
daughter, petitioners N0.2 is the mother and petitioner
No.3 is the father of the deceased. During pendency of
petition , 3rd petitioner died. Hence, petitioners No.1 and 2
are only dependants of the deceased. So ,as per the ratio
laid down in Sarla Verma's decision, reported in 2009 ACJ
SCCH- 13 35
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
1298 (SC), the quantum of savings is taken as 1/3rd of the
income of the deceased. While discussing in foregoing
paras, this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the
annual income of the deceased is at Rs.4,55,202/- p.a.
and after deducting 1/3rd of the annual income of the
deceased i.e. Rs.1,51,734/-, Rs.3,03,468/- would be the
loss of yearly dependency to the petitioners. As the
deceased was 38 years old at the time of his death, the
proper multiplier according to the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation- 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), applicable
between the age group of 36 to 40 years is "15".
Therefore, on taking the multiplicand and the yearly loss
of earning, Rs.3,03,468/- x 15 = Rs.45,52,020/- would
be the loss of dependency to the petitioners, which is just
and fair compensation.
(iii) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION:- \
Petitioner No.1 is the daughter of the deceased who
is aged about five years, petitioner No.2 is the mother who
is now aged about 57 years and the petitioner No.3 who
SCCH- 13 36
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
the father who was alive at the time of filing the petition is
now dead. So, the petitioners No.1 who has lost her father
at the earliest age of five and petitioner No.2 being the
aged mother had lost her son who being the bread earner
of the family. Hence, this tribunal deems it reasonable to
award Rs.50,000/- towards the loss of love and affection,
which is just and fair compensation
(iv) LOSS OF ESTATE:- Having regard to the age
and prospectus of the life of the deceased, this tribunal
feel that it is just and proper to award Rs.30,000/-
towards the loss of estate, which is the just and fair
compensation.
Thus petitioners are entitled for compensation under
the following heads:-
1. Loss of dependency: Rs.45,52,202/-
2. Loss of estate: 30,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection: 50,000/-
4. Funeral expenses: 25,000/-
Total Rs.46,57,202/-
`
SCCH- 13 37
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
Hence, this court feel it is just and proper to award
the compensation of Rs.46,57,202/- to the petitioners,
which is the just and fair compensation.
24. Issue No.4 in MVC.No.3064/15 :- As the
petitioners have proved Issue Nos.1 and 2 and the
involvement of the offending Duster Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-04-ML-8543 which belongs to 1st respondent
and it was insured with 2nd respondent, the petitioners
are entitled for a compensation from the respondents
jointly and severally to the quantum arrived as below:
(i) TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY AND
FUNERAL EXPENSES:
The accident took place at Bagepalli-
Chikkaballapura NH-4 road, whereby, the petitioners are
the residence of Jambigemaradahalli, Somenahalli Post,
Gudibande Taluk, Chikkaballapur and after the accident,
Post Mortem was conducted at Govt.Hospital at
Chikkabappaur and death body has been brought to the
place of their native place and funeral and obsequies was
SCCH- 13 38
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
conducted So, taking into consideration of this fact, it is
reasonable to hold that the petitioners are entitled for a
sum of Rs.25,000/- under the above head..
(ii) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
Deceased- Manasa N. who is the wife of late
Manjunath J.V., the son of the petitioner No.1 in
MVC.No.3063/15. As per the evidence of PW1, her
daughter in law -Manasa was hale and healthy, aged
about 28 years at the time of her death. She was working
as a School Teacher at Sathyasai Balamandira,
Varalakonda village and Post, Gudibande Taluk,
Chikkaballapura Dist. and she was getting salary of
Rs.6,800/- p.m. she had done M.A. in English language
and B.Ed. and she was eligible to get Govt. Job and at
that time, her salary would have been more than
Rs.25,000/- p.m. Ex.P12 is the Salary certificate of the
deceased-Manasa wherein it show that the monthly salary
as Rs.6,900/- . Ex.P13 is the attested copy of B.Ed Marks
cards shows that she passed the bachelor of Education in
first class. Ex.P14 is the Convocational certificate of the
SCCH- 13 39
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
deceased,Ex.P15 is the statement of marks of M.A.
(English) of the deceased, Ex.P16 is the Convocation
certificate for the Master of Arts in English of the deceased
and Ex.P17 is the election identity card of the deceased,
wherein the date of birth of the deceased is shown as
08.09.1986. Though, the petitioners have not opted to
examine the employer, the salary certificate issued by the
concerned educational Dept. which makes out that she
was drawing a salary of Rs.6,800/- at the time of accident.
As the deceased had done her master degree, in the event
of her securing a job, she would have earned more and
better salary. Usually, normal Coolie being paid in the in
the year 2015 is considered at the range of Rs.200 to
300/- per day. Here, in the present case, the deceased-
Manasa had done B.Ed. and M.A. in English language.
So, taking into consideration her educational qualification,
though at the time of her death, she is being paid a sum of
Rs.6,800/- p.m., she had got every scope of getting a job
either as Teacher of High School or as a Lecturer. Hence,
considering this fact, the income of the deceased-Manasa
being considered as Rs.10,000/- p.m. Hence, this
SCCH- 13 40
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
Tribunal feels to take monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.10,000/- p.m. or Rs.1,20,000/- p.a.
As per the decision referred above in Rajesh vs.
Rajbir Singh case reported in 2013 ACJ 1403, the
petitioners are entitled for additional 50% of total income
towards future prospects. Annual income of the deceased
works out at Rs.1,20,000/- + 50% i.e. Rs.60,000/-.
Hence, Rs.1,80,000/- would be the yearly loss of
dependency to the petitioners.
Admittedly, the deceased has left behind petitioners
No.1 to 4 as his legal heirs. 1st petitioner is the minor
daughter, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the mother and
father in laws of the deceased. During pendency of petition
, 3rd petitioner died. Hence, petitioners No.1 and 2 are only
dependants of the deceased. So ,as per the ratio laid down
in Sarla Verma's decision, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298
(SC), the quantum of savings is taken as 1/3rd of the
income of the deceased. While discussing in foregoing
paras, this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the
SCCH- 13 41
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
annual income of the deceased is at Rs.1,60,000/- p.a.
and after deducting 1/3rd of the annual income of the
deceased i.e. Rs.53,333/-, Rs.1,06,667/- would be the
loss of yearly dependency to the petitioners. As per
Ex.P17, the deceased was 29 years old at the time of her
death, the proper multiplier according to the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation- 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC),
applicable between the age group of 26 to 30 years is "17".
Therefore, on taking the multiplicand and the yearly loss
of earning, Rs.1,06,667/- x 17 = Rs.18,13,339/- would
be the loss of dependency to the petitioners, which is just
and fair compensation.
(iii) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION:- \
Petitioner No.1 is the daughter of the deceased who
is aged about five years, petitioner No.2 is the mother in
law who is now aged about 57 years and the petitioner
No.3 who the father in law who was alive at the time of
filing the petition is now dead. So, the petitioners No.1
who has lost her father at the earliest age of five and
SCCH- 13 42
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
petitioner No.2 being the aged mother had lost her
daughter in law. Hence, this tribunal has no hesitation to
award Rs.50,000/- towards the loss of love and affection,
which is just and fair compensation
(iv) LOSS OF ESTATE:- Having regard to the age
and prospectus of the life of the deceased, this tribunal
feel that it is just and proper to award Rs.30,000/-
towards the loss of estate, which is the just and fair
compensation.
Thus petitioners are entitled for compensation under
the following heads:-
1. Loss of dependency: Rs.18,13,339/-
2. Loss of estate: 30,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection: 50,000/-
4. Funeral expenses: 25,000/-
Total Rs.,19,18,339/-
`
Hence, this court feel it is just and proper to award
the compensation of Rs.19,18,339/- to the petitioners,
which is the just and fair compensation.
SCCH- 13 43
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
25. Since, petitioner No.1 in MVC.No.3063/15 and
3064/15 is minor daughter of the deceased-Manjunatha
J.V. and Manasa, who has lost her parents, this Tribunal
feels to deposit her entire share amount awarded in these
cases in Fixed Deposit at the ratio of 50% till she attaining
the age of the majority and 50% till at the time of her
marriage, without there being any premature claim.
However, 2nd petitioner-mother in law of 1st petitioner is
at liberty to draw periodical interest and make use of the
amount for the welfare of the minor petitioner No.1 in
MVC.No.3063/15 and 3064/14.
26. Issue No.4 in MVC.No.3065/15 :-
As the petitioners have proved Issue Nos.1 and 2
and the involvement of the offending Duster Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-04-ML-8543 which belongs to 1st respondent
and it was insured with 2nd respondent, the petitioners
are entitled for a compensation from the respondents
jointly and severally to the quantum arrived as below:
SCCH- 13 44
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
(i) TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY AND
FUNERAL EXPENSES:
The accident took place at Bagepalli-
Chikkaballapura NH-4 road, whereby, the petitioners are
the residence of Jambigemaradahalli, Somenahalli Post,
Gudibande Taluk, Chikkaballapur and after the accident,
the injured was taken to Govt.Hospital, Chikkaballapura,
after first , he was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Bengaluru, wherein he succumbed to the said injuries
during the course of treatment on 08.04.2015 at about
1.00 a.m. Post Mortem was conducted at Govt.Hospital at
Chikkabappaur and death body has been brought to the
place of their native place and funeral and obsequies was
conducted So, taking into consideration of this fact, it is
reasonable to hold that the petitioners are entitled for a
sum of Rs.25,000/- under the above head..
(ii) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
Deceased-Govindaraju was aged about 33 years at
the time of his death and he was working as a Milk Tester
at his Village-KMF (Kochimul) Dairy everyday the morning
SCCH- 13 45
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
and evening and was earning Rs.1,700/- p.m. He had
underwent training in artificial insemination and also
fertility examiner of cattle and on that basis he was
working as a artificial inseminator and fertility examiner of
cattle in the above said dairy and getting salary of
Rs.1,800/- p.m. and a commission of about Rs.15,000/-
p.m. He was also working as a Coordinator in "Janani
Vikalachethanara Keshmabhivruddi Sangha at this village
and earning Rs.1,500/- p.m. and Rs.5,000/- p.m. by
pursuing agriculture, totally, in all he was earning more
than Rs.25,000/- p.m. The petitioners were entirely
depending upon the income of the deceased. In order to
substantiate the petition averments, the wife of the
deceased had been examined as PW2 and she has
reiterated the petition averments with regard to the
profession and income of the deceased and stated that
they are entirely depending upon the earnings of
deceased. She has produced Salary Certificates of Artificial
inseminator and milk examiner and 3 RTC extract which
are marked as Exs.P23 to P25. The documents Exs.P23
and P24 makes out that he was earning a sum of
SCCH- 13 46
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
Rs.1,800/- p.m. from as artificial inseminator and
Rs.1,700/- p.m. as milk examiner. Further, from Ex.P25,
it is also made out that the deceased was also doing
agricultural work. So, taking into consideration of this
fact, as the accident was taken place in the year 2015, the
income of the deceased from all sources can be reasonably
considered as Rs.9,000/- p.m. Hence, this Tribunal feels
to take monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-
p.m. or Rs.1,08,000/- p.a.
As per the decision reported in Rajesh vs. Rajbir
Singh - 2013 ACJ 1403 as stated supra, as the deceased
is aged about 33 years as per the Post mortem report
Ex.P20, the petitioners are entitled for additional 50% of
total income towards future prospects. Annual income
works out at Rs.108,000/- + Rs.54,000/-. Hence,
Rs.1,62,000/- would be the yearly loss of dependency to
the petitioners.
Admittedly, the deceased has left behind petitioners
No.1 to 5 as his legal heirs. Petitioners No.2 and 5 are
SCCH- 13 47
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
the minor daughters, petitioner N0.1 is the wife and
petitioners No.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased.
mother and petitioner No.3 is the father of the deceased.
During pendency of petition, the father of the deceased i.e.
4th petitioner died. Hence, petitioners No.1 to 4 are only
dependants of the deceased. So ,as per the ratio laid down
in Sarla Verma's decision, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298
(SC), the quantum of savings is taken as 1/4th of the
income of the deceased. While discussing in foregoing
paras, this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the
annual income of the deceased is at Rs.1,62,000/- p.a.
and after deducting 1/4th of the annual income of the
deceased i.e. Rs.40,500/-, Rs.1,21,500/- would be the
loss of yearly dependency to the petitioners. As the
deceased was 33 years old at the time of his death, the
proper multiplier according to the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation- 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), applicable
between the age group of 31 to 35 years is "16".
Therefore, on taking the multiplicand and the yearly loss
of earning, Rs.1,21,500/- x 16 = Rs.19,44,000/- would
SCCH- 13 48
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
be the loss of dependency to the petitioners, which is just
and fair compensation.
(iii) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION:-
Petitioner No.1 is the wife, the petitioners No.2 and 5
are the minor daughters of the deceased, petitioner No.3 is
the mother who is now aged about 57 years and the
petitioner No.4 who the father of the deceased who was
alive at the time of filing the petition is now dead. So, the
petitioner No.1 who has lost her husband at her tender
age i.e. at the age of 20 years and petitioners No. 2 and 5
who have lost her father at the earliest age of five and five
months , petitioner No.3 being the aged mother had lost
her son who being the bread earner of the family. Hence,
this tribunal has no hesitation to award Rs.60,000/-
towards the loss of love and affection, which is just and
fair compensation
(iv) LOSS OF ESTATE:- Having regard to the age
and prospectus of the life of the deceased, this tribunal
feel that it is just and proper to award Rs.30,000/-
SCCH- 13 49
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
towards the loss of estate, which is the just and fair
compensation.
(v) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM:- Admittedly, the
petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, who had lost
her husband at the age of 20 years, on account of which,
there is a loss of consortium. Therefore, this Tribunal
would like to award Rs.25,000/- which is just and fair
compensation.
Thus petitioners are entitled for compensation under
the following heads:-
1. Loss of dependency: Rs.19,44,000/-
2. Loss of estate: 30,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection: 60,000/-
4. Funeral expenses: 25,000/-
5. Loss of consortium: 25,000/-
Total Rs.20,84,000/-
`
Hence, this court feel it is just and proper to award
the compensation of Rs.20,84,000/- to the petitioners,
which is the just and fair compensation.
SCCH- 13 50
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
27. As per Sec.171 of the Motor Vehicle's Act, where
any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation, it
can direct that in addition to the amount of compensation,
simple interest shall be paid at such rate and from such
date nor earlier than the date of making the claim. As per
ruling reported in ILR 2000 Karnataka 1098, the case
of Puttanna and another -vs- Lakshmana and others,
it is held that unless there are special circumstances,
interest that has to be awarded on the compensation
amount is 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is entitled
for interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
28. So far as liability is concerned, it is not in
dispute that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle
was belongs to 1st respondent, which was insured with
2nd respondent and the policy was in force as on the date
of accident. Possession of valid DL by the driver of
offending vehicle is also not in dispute. Therefore, both
respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation and in view of subsistence of insurance
SCCH- 13 51
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
policy, 2nd respondent-insurance company shall deposit
compensation amount in the court with interest at 6% p.a.
Hence, I answer Issue No.4 accordingly.
29. Issue No.5 in all the three cases:- In view of
my findings on issue No.1 to 4 in all the three cases, I
proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER
The Claim Petitions in MVC.Nos.3063/15, 3064/15 and 3065/15 filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act are allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.46,57,202/- to the petitioners in MVC.No.3063/15/14, Rs.19,18,339/- to the petitioners in MVC.No.3064/15 and Rs.20,84,000/- to the petitioners in MVC.No.3065/15 with interest at the rate of SCCH- 13 52
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petitions till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2-Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount awarded in all the three cases within two months from today.
In MVC.Nos.3063/15 and 3064/15 petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation at the ratio of 70:30% in each cases.
After deposit of the compensation amount in MVC.Nos.3063/15 and 3064/15, 50% of compensation amount each shall be kept in FD in the name of the minor petitioner No.1 till she attains the age of majority and remaining 50% each shall be kept in FD till the time of her marriage, without there being any premature claim in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of petitioners choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months for the welfare of minor petitioner No.1.SCCH- 13 53
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 Out of share amount of 2nd petitioner, 40% each shall be kept in FD for a period of 3 years in any nationalized or schedule bank of her choice with a liberty to draw the accrued interest of the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to her through the cheque under proper identification.
In MVC.No.3065/15, petitioners No.1, 2 and 5 are entitled in the ratio of 30:30:30 and petitioner No.4 is entitled for 10%.
After deposit of the compensation amount in MVC.Nos.3065/15, 50% of compensation amount each shall be kept in FD in the name of the minor petitioners No.2 and 5 till they attain the age of majority and remaining 50% each shall be kept in FD till at the time of their marriage, in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of petitioners choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months for the welfare of minor petitioners No.2 and 5.
Out of share amount of 1st petitioner, 40% shall be kept in FD for a period of 3 years in any nationalized or schedule bank of her choice with SCCH- 13 54
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 a liberty to draw the accrued interest of the said FD once in three months and the balance amount of 1st petitioner and entire compensation amount of 3rd petitioner shall be paid to them through the cheque under proper identification.
Original judgment shall be kept in MVC.3063/2015 and the copies thereof in other cases.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/- each Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of November 2016).
(PANCHAKSHARI M.) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioner :
PW.1 : Smt.Parvathamma
PW.2 : Smt.Aruna Kumari
PW3 : Sri.J.N.Byrareddy
PW4 : Sri.G.Ramakrishnapppa
SCCH- 13 55
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 List of documents marked for petitioner :
Ex.P-1 : FIR with complaint
Ex.P-2 : Mahazar
Ex.P-3 : Sketch
Ex.P-4 : IMV report
Ex.P-5 : Inquest report
Ex.P-6 : PM report
Ex.P-7 : Charge sheet
Ex.P-8 : Pay Slip
Ex.P-9 : NC of ration card (compared with original
and returned)
Ex.P-10 : Inquest report
Ex.P-11 : PM report
Ex.P-12 : Salary certificate
Ex.P-13 : NC of B.Ed Marks cards (2 in Nos.)
Ex.P-14 : NC of B.Ed convocation certificate
Ex.P-15 : NC MA consolidated marks card
Ex.P-16 : NC of MA Convocation certificate
E.P-17 : NC of Voter ID of Deceased
Ex.P-18 : NC of Adhaar card
Ex.P-19 : Inquest Report
Ex.P-20 : PM report
Ex.P-21 : Certificate Artificial inseminator
Ex.P-22 : Certificate cattle
Ex.P-23 : Salary certificate of Artificial inseminator
Ex.P-24 : Salary certificate of milk examiner
Ex.P-25 : 3 RTC
Ex.P-26 : NC of Ration card (compared with original
and returned)
Ex.P-27 NC of birth certificate of 5th Petitioner
(compared with original and returned) Ex.P-28 : Authorization letter Ex.P-29 : Attested copy of Pay slip Ex.P-30 : Attested copy of the Service Book from page No.1 to 23 and 26 to 31 Ex.P-31 : Attested copy of IT Returns of deceased-
Manjunath for the A/Y 2015-16 Ex.P-32 : Attested copy of Pan card.
SCCH- 13 56- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 List of witnesses & documents for respondents :
RW1 : Mr. Santhosh B.L.
Ex.R1 : Copy of Insurance policy.
(PANCHAKSHARI M.)
II Addl.Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
** SCCH- 13 57
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 AWARD SCCH.NO:13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.3063 of 2015.
Petitioners : 1. Kum.J.M.Nishchitha, 5 years, D/o Late J.V.Manjunatha,
2. Smt.Parvathamma, 57 years, W/o Venkateshappa J.G.,
3. Sri.Venkateshappa, 60 years, S/o Late Govindappa, (Deleted since dead) Since, petitioner No.1 is minor, represented by her grand mother- 2nd petitioner as natural guardian.
All are R/at Jambigemaradahalli village, Somenahalli Post, Godibande Taluk, Chikkaballapura Dist.
(By Pleader Sri.Manjunath N.)
-vs-
Respondents: 1. Mr.Shaik Farid UR Rahaman P., S/o Abdul Samad, major in age, R/at No.660/2, Pillanna Garden 2nd stage, Water Tank main road, Near Jolley Ice Cream Factory, Nagawara, Bengaluru-560 045.
SCCH- 13 58- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 (Exparte)
2. The Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd., Regional Office, No.28, 5th floor, East Wing, Centenary Building, M.G.Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri.Betsur, Advocate) WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs._________ (Rupees _________________________________for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of ___________in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No.___________.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.Panchakashari M.), II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act is allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:SCCH- 13 59
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.46,57,202/- to the petitioners with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petitions till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2-Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today.
The petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation at the ratio of 70:30% .
After deposit of the compensation amount 50% of compensation amount shall be kept in FD in the name of the minor petitioner No.1 till she attains the age of majority and remaining 50% shall be kept in FD till the time of her marriage, without there being any premature claim in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of petitioners choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months for the welfare of minor petitioner No.1.
Out of share amount of 2nd petitioner, 40% shall be kept in FD for a period of 3 years in any SCCH- 13 60
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 nationalized or schedule bank of her choice with a liberty to draw the accrued interest of the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to her through the cheque under proper identification. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_ the .......... day of ................2016) MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
COST OF PETITION
By the
Petitioner/s Respondents
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on Petition 10-00
Court fee paid on Powers
Court fee paid on I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
METROPOLITAN AREA,
BENGALURU.
SCCH- 13 61
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 AWARD SCCH.NO:13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No 3064 of 2015.
Petitioners: 1. Kum.J.M.Nishchitha, 5 years, D/o Late J.V.Manjunatha,
2. Smt.Parvathamma, 57 years, W/o Venkateshappa J.G.,
3. Sri.Venkateshappa, 60 years, S/o Late Govindappa, (Deleted since dead) Since, petitioner No.1 is minor, represented by her grand mother-
2nd petitioner as natural guardian.
All are R/at Jambigemaradahalli village, Somenahalli Post, Godibande Taluk, Chikkaballapura Dist.
(By Pleader Sri.Manjunath N.)
-vs-
Respondents : 1. Mr.Shaik Farid UR Rahaman P., S/o Abdul Samad, major in age, R/at No.660/2, Pillanna Garden 2nd stage, Water Tank main road, Near Jolley Ice Cream Factory, Nagawara, Bengaluru-560 045.
(Exparte) SCCH- 13 62
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15
2. The Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd., Regional Office, No.28, 5th floor, East Wing, Centenary Building, M.G.Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri.Betsur, Advocate) WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs._________ (Rupees _________________________________for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of ___________in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No.___________.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.Panchakashari M.), II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act is allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent SCCH- 13 63
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.19,18,339/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petitions till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2-Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today.
The petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation at the ratio of 70:30%.
After deposit of the compensation amount 50% of compensation amount shall be kept in FD in the name of the minor petitioner No.1 till she attains the age of majority and remaining 50% each shall be kept in FD till the time of her marriage, without there being any premature claim in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of petitioners choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months for the welfare of minor petitioner No.1.
Out of share amount of 2nd petitioner, 40% shall be kept in FD for a period of 3 years in any nationalized or schedule bank of her choice with SCCH- 13 64
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 a liberty to draw the accrued interest of the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to her through the cheque under proper identification. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_ the .......... day of ................2016) MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
COST OF PETITION
By the
Petitioner/s Respondents
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on Petition 10-00
Court fee paid on Powers
Court fee paid on I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
METROPOLITAN AREA,
BENGALURU.
SCCH- 13 65
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 SCCH.NO:13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No. 3065 of 2015.
Petitioners : 1.Smt.Aruna Kumari G.K., W/o Late Govindaraju, 20 years,
2. Kum.Sneha, 2 years D/o Late Govindaraju,
3. Smt.Parvathamma, 57 years, W/o Venkateshappa J.G.,
4. Sri.Venkateshappa, 60 years, S/o Late Govindappa, (Deleted since dead)
5. Kum.J.G.Bhanusri, 5 months, D/o late Gonvindappa, Since, petitioner No.2 and 5 are minors, represented by their mother/ natural guardian-
Smt.Aruna Kumar G.K., 1st petitioner.
All are R/at Jambigemaradahalli village, Somenahalli Post, Godibande Taluk, Chikkaballapura Dist.
(By Pleader Sri.Manjunath N.)
-vs-
SCCH- 13 66- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 Respondents : 1. Mr.Shaik Farid UR Rahaman P., S/o Abdul Samad, major in age, R/at No.660/2, Pillanna Garden 2nd stage, Water Tank main road, Near Jolley Ice Cream Factory, Nagawara, Bengaluru-560 045.
(Exparte)
2. The Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd., Regional Office, No.28, 5th floor, East Wing, Centenary Building, M.G.Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri.Betsur, Advocate) WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs._________ (Rupees _________________________________for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of ___________in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No.___________.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.Panchakashari M., II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
SCCH- 13 67- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 ORDER The Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act is allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount Rs.20,84,000/- to the petitioners with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petitions till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2-Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today. The petitioners No.1, 2 and 5 are entitled in the ratio of 30:30:30 and petitioner No.4 is entitled for 10%.
After deposit of the compensation amount, 50% of compensation amount each shall be kept in FD in the name of the minor petitioners No.2 and 5 till they attain the age of majority and remaining 50% each shall be kept in FD till at the time of their marriage, in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of petitioners choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three SCCH- 13 68
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 months for the welfare of minor petitioners No.2 and 5.
Out of share amount of 1st petitioner, 40% shall be kept in FD for a period of 3 years in any nationalized or schedule bank of her choice with a liberty to draw the accrued interest of the said FD once in three months and the balance amount of 1st petitioner and entire compensation amount of 3rd petitioner shall be paid to them through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_ the .......... day of ................2016) MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.SCCH- 13 69
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 COST OF PETITION By the Petitioner/s Respondents No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
METROPOLITAN AREA,
BENGALURU.
SCCH- 13 70
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 ORDER The Claim Petitions in MVC.Nos.3063/15, 3064/15 and 3065/15 filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act are allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.46,57,202/- to the petitioners in MVC.No.3063/15/14, Rs.19,18,339/- to the petitioners in MVC.No.3064/15 and Rs.20,84,000/- to the petitioners in MVC.No.3065/15 with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petitions till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2-Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount awarded in all the three cases within two months from today.
In MVC.Nos.3063/15 and 3064/15 petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for SCCH- 13 71
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 compensation at the ratio of 70:30% in each cases.
After deposit of the compensation amount in MVC.Nos.3063/15 and 3064/15, 50% of compensation amount each shall be kept in FD in the name of the minor petitioner No.1 till she attains the age of majority and remaining 50% each shall be kept in FD till the time of her marriage, without there being any premature claim in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of petitioners choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months for the welfare of minor petitioner No.1.
Out of share amount of 2nd petitioner, 40% each shall be kept in FD for a period of 3 years in any nationalized or schedule bank of her choice with a liberty to draw the accrued interest of the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to her through the cheque under proper identification. In MVC.No.3065/15, petitioners No.1, 2 and 5 are entitled in the ratio of 30:30:30 and petitioner No.4 is entitled for 10%.
After deposit of the compensation amount in MVC.Nos.3065/15, 50% of compensation amount each shall be kept in FD in the name of SCCH- 13 72
- - MVC.NO.3063, 3064 of 3065/15 the minor petitioners No.2 and 5 till they attain the age of majority and remaining 50% each shall be kept in FD till at the time of their marriage, in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of petitioners choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months for the welfare of minor petitioners No.2 and 5.
Out of share amount of 1st petitioner, 40% shall be kept in FD for a period of 3 years in any nationalized or schedule bank of her choice with a liberty to draw the accrued interest of the said FD once in three months and the balance amount of 1st petitioner and entire compensation amount of 3rd petitioner shall be paid to them through the cheque under proper identification.
Original judgment shall be kept in MVC.3063/2015 and the copies thereof in other cases.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/- each Draw award accordingly.
(PANCHAKSHARI M.) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.