Bangalore District Court
No.2. On Perusal Of The Said Oral ... vs And Based On The Evidence Of R.W.1 As ... on 15 December, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 15th day of December, 2016.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.2386/2015
1. Sri. Dattathreya Ramachandra Hegde, ..... PETITIONERS
Aged about 56 years,
S/o. Ramachandra Hegde,
F/o. Raghavendra Dattatreya Hegde.
2. Smt. Bharathi Dattathreya Hegde @
Bharathi,
Aged about 48 years,
W/o. Sri. Dattareya Ramachandra Hegde,
M/o. Raghavendra. D. Hegde.
Both are residing at;
No.280, 8th Cross,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bangalore - 97.
Permanent Address;
R/o. Hasanagi (V),
Yellapura Taluk,
Uttarakannada District.
(By Sri. R.V. Hegde, Adv.,)
V/s
2 MVC No.2386/2015
SCCH-7
The Managing Director,
K.S.R.T.C., ..... RESPONDENT
Sarige Bhavana,
K.H. Road,
Bengaluru - 27.
(Registered Owner of Bus No.KA-11-F-170)
(By Smt. Sajida Begum, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioners No.1 and 2 have filed the present petition as against the Respondent under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award compensation of Rupees 80,00,000/, in respect of death of Sri. Raghavendra Dattathreya Hegde S/o. Sri. Dattathreya Ramachandra Hegde.
2. The brief averments of the Petitioners' case are as follows;
a) They claim the following special damages;
1. Funeral Expenses and Obsequies Ceremony Rs. 1,00,000/-
2. Transportation of dead body Rs. 20,000/-
b) On 03.05.2013 at about 1-30 a.m., (02.05.2013 midnight), on Bengaluru - Mysore Road, in front of BGS Blind School, near Janapadaloka, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara, one Mr. Raghavendra Dattatreya Hegde was proceeding on his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-HV-4633 from Mysore 3 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 towards Bengaluru. At that time, one KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and dashed as against the Motor Cycle. With the effect, Mr. Raghavendra Dattatreya Hegde (R.D. Hegde) fell down and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. P.M. conducted at Ramanagar District Hospital, Ramanagara. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170.
c) At the time of accident, the deceased R.D. Hegde was hale and healthy and was aged about 22 years. The deceased was the only son to them. They had two daughters and they are already married. They had hope and future and depend on their son Raghavendra only. The deceased was studying B.E. in Final Semester. For his education, he had availed Bank loan of Rupees 2,57,450/- from Syndicate Bank. On the death of Raghavendra, re-paying burden fall on the shoulder of them. The Petitioner No.1, who also availed huge loan of Rupees 6,04,500/- for the development of the agriculture on the belief of the earning capacity of their son Raghavendra. Now all burdens, viz., education loan and agriculture loan with cost and interest and maintenance of the family completely fall on them. On the death of their son, no person is supporting the family. They were totally depending on the earnings of the deceased Raghavendra.
d) The deceased Raghavendra was working in Gram Tech Net as a part time employee and was drawing salary of Rupees 13,000/- per month. Since the family was running with huge 4 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 debt, he was forcibly working in a company with unavoidable circumstances. On the death Raghavendra, the total economic status of the family destroyed. The deceased was a bright student and was studious in nature and most competent worker. If he was alive, they would have enjoyed higher economic and social status, moral support and love and affection. Hence, this petition.
3. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the Respondent, he was remained absent and hence, he was placed as exparte on 05.08.2015. Later, the Respondent has appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and as per the Order dated 22.09.2015 passed on I.A.No.I, the exparte order is set-aside and the Respondent is taken on file. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 06.02.2016 passed on I.A.No.II, the written statement filed by the Respondent is taken on file.
4. The Respondent inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioners, has further contended as follows;
a) The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
b) The claim for an award of Rupees 80,00,000/- compensation claiming is baseless, speculative, imaginary and exorbitant and unconscionable, unrelated to the nature and extent of death, if any, suffered by the Petitioners and exaggerated. The Petitioners are trying to convert an unfortunate 5 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 incident into a windfall, such a huge amount, is claimed only because of no Court fee is payable on the claim amount.
c) On 02.05.2013, the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 was manning the Route No.51/AB from Mysore to Bangalore. The said Bus was proceeding towards Bangalore driven by its driver slowly, carefully on the left of the road observing all the traffic rules and regulation. In the mid night of 02.05.2013, the said Bus was near Ramanagara in front of the Janapada Loka, a Car bearing Registration No.3828 came from the back side of the said Bus in a rash and negligent manner with terrific speed dashed as against the rear right side portion of the Bus and for this impact, the driver of the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.CAZ-3828 apologized with the driver of the said Bus. Then, the driver and the conductor of the said continued their trip and halted at MACT Bus stand. After some time in the mid night itself, the driver of the said Car and others came to MCTC Bus stand and said that, they have enquired and taken their statement by the Police and they left their vehicle in the Police Station only, now, they are asking you to give statement along with vehicle to the Ramanagara Police Station for enquiry.
d) For this, both the driver and conductor went to the Police Station along with the said Bus. There in the Police Station, the police officials enquired about the accident about the death of a two wheeler rider in the Mysore - Bangalore road near Blind school. The police officials in the said Police Station after a thorough enquiry let them to go as there was no fault of the driver of the said Bus.
6 MVC No.2386/2015SCCH-7
e) But, again on 05.07.2013 they called for enquiry on doubt basis and seized the said Bus, then released. It is no doubt it is a concocted story of the Petitioners and the Police officials about the alleged accident.
f) The Petitioners have filed a false case by concocting the documents with the help of Police, by impleading it with an intention to extract huge money from it. It is not liable to pay any compensation amount claimed in the petition.
g) He reserves its liberty to file additional written statement, if the occasion demands at a later stage.
h) The Petitioners have not impleaded the R.C. Owner and the Insurer of the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.CAZ-3828. Hence, it humbly prays that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.
5. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the following Issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the dependents and legal representatives of deceased SRI.
RAGHAVENDRA DATTATHREYA HEGDE?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that the accident occurred due to rash 7 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 and negligent driving of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-
11-F-170 by its driver and Sri. Raghavendra Dattathreya Hegde died due to the injuries sustained in the accident?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What Order?
6. In order to prove their case, the Petitioners have examined the Petitioner No.1 as P.W.1 and have also examined one witness as P.W.2 by filing the affidavits as their examination- in-chief and have placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. The Respondent has examined the driver as R.W.1 by filing an affidavit as his examination in chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.R1 and R2.
7. Heard the arguments. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has filed the written arguments.
8. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners Sri. R.V. Hegde has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,
i) 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s. Rajbir Singh and Others), wherein, it is observed that, 8 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 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 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.
Quantum - Fatal - accident - Principles of assessment - Future expenses - it would be just, fair and equitable, under the head of funeral expenses, at least Rupees 25,000/- may be awarded in the absence of evidence for higher expenses.
ii) 2012 ACJ 2002 (Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others V/s. National Insurance Company Ltd., and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Quantum - Fatal - accident - Principles of assessment - Multiplier - Choice of -
deceased aged 26 and claimants are father, mother and sister who got married during pendency of claim application - Tribunal adopted multiplier of 17 - high Court reduced multiplier to 13 - whether multiplier of 17 based on the age of the deceased be applied - Held: yes; the age of dependents has no nexus with computation of compensation.
9 MVC No.2386/2015SCCH-7
iv) 2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout and Another V/s. Satya Pradyamna Mohapatra and Others), wherein, it is observed that, (B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 168 - Compensation - Enhancement -
deceased working as driver of Car which is skilled job- Monthly salary of deceased driver taken at Rupees 6,000/- - Applying multiplier of 16 to multiplicand of Rupees 62,400/-, amount of Rupees 9,98,400/-
arrive at towards loss of dependency -
Deduction of 50% out of total loss of dependency based on contributory negligence, not proper - Adding Rupees 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, total compensation of Rupees 10,48,400/- held liable to be paid -
Insurance Company also liable to pay interest at rate of 9% per annum, from date of application till date of payment.
9. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioners are
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 21,81,000/-
with interest at the rate of
9% p.a. from the date of
the petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent.
10 MVC No.2386/2015
SCCH-7
Issue No.4 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
10. ISSUE NO.1 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner No.1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that, the Petitioners No.2 is his wife and they have preferred the present claim petition for the compensation of the accidental death of his son Raghavendra Dattatreya Hegde, who died on the accidental spot itself on 03.05.2013 at 1-30 a.m., due to the road traffic accident, which caused by the K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F- 170 in front of BGS Blind School, near Janapadaloka, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.6 Postmortem Report, Ex.P.7 Inquest, Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.11 Certificate dated 03.06.2013 issued by BMS College of Engineering, Ex.P.15 SSLC Marks Card relating to deceased, Ex.P.16 PUC Marks Card relating to deceased, Ex.P.17 Ration Card, Ex.P.18 Aadhaar Card relating to deceased and Ex.P.19 Aadhaar Card relating to the Petitioner No.2. On perusal of the said oral evidence of P.W.1 as well as the contents of the said material documents, it is made crystal clear that, the Petitioner No.1 is a father and the Petitioner No.2 is a mother of the deceased Raghavendra Dattatreya Hegde, who died on the accidental spot itself due to the accidental injuries, which was taken place on 03.05.2013 at 1-30 a.m., in front of BGS Blind School by the K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170. Since, the Petitioner No.1 is a father 11 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 and the Petitioner No.2 is a mother of the deceased, they are the legal representatives of the said deceased. But, based on the same, it cannot be said that, both the Petitioners are the dependents upon the said deceased at the time of accident, as, it is well settled principle of law that, the father cannot be considered as a dependent upon the deceased son. Further, at the time of accident, the deceased was 22 years old and he was a student of 3rd Semester Mechanical Engineer at BMS College of Engineering, which is clearly admitted by the P.W.1 in his cross- examination and also clear from the contents of the documents produced by the Petitioners in the present petition. Hence, the Petitioner No.2 being a mother can only be taken into for consideration as a dependent upon the said deceased. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 partly in the Affirmative.
11. ISSUE NO.2 :- The P.W.1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that, on 03.05.2013 at about 1-30 a.m., on Bengaluru - Mysore Road, in front of BGS Blind School, near Janapadaloka, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara, his son Mr. Raghavendra Dattatreya Hegde was riding on his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-HV-4633 and proceeding from Mysore towards Bengaluru and at that time, one K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed as against his son's Motor Cycle and caused the accident and with the effect, his son fell down and sustained fatal injuries and he died on the spot and P.M. conducted at Ramanagar Government Hospital. He has further stated that, the accident occurred only due to rash and 12 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 and the jurisdictional Police have Charge Sheeted as against the driver of the KSRTC Bus.
12. No doubt, the P.W.1 is not an eye witness of the accident in question. In this regard, the P.W.1 in his cross- examination has clearly stated that, he has not seen the accident. Further, the Petitioner has not examined any eye witness of the accident in question to consider their case in the present petition. Further, the P.W.1 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that, Parameshwar Bhat, who is an younger brother of his wife had lodged a complaint about the alleged accident before the Police and as per the said complaint, the Car dashed to the KSRTC Bus on its behind. Further, the Respondent has examined the driver of the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 as R.W.1, who has stated in his examination-in- chief that, on 02.05.2013, he was the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 and he was manning the Route No.51/AB from Mysore to Bangalore and the said Bus was proceeding towards Bangalore driven by him slowly, carefully on the left of the road by observing all the traffic rules and regulations and in the mid night of 02.05.2013, the said Bus was near Ramanagara, in front of the Janapada Loka, a Car bearing Registration No.CAZ-3828 came from the back side of the said Bus in a rash and negligent manner with terrific speed and dashed as against the rear right side portion of the Bus and for this impact, the driver of the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.CAZ-3828 apologized with him and then, he and the conductor 13 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 of the said Bus continued their tip and halted at MCTC Bus Stand and after some time, in the mid night itself, the driver of the said Car and others came to MCTC Bus sand and said that, they have enquired and taken their statement by the Police and they left their vehicle in the Police Station only and now they are asking his statement to come and give along with the vehicle to the Ramanagara Police Station for enquiry. He has further stated that, for this, both he and the conductor went to the Police Station along with the said Bus and there in the Police Station, the Police Officials enquired about the accident and about the death of a two wheeler rider in the Mysore - Bangalore Road, near Blind School and then, the Police Officials in the said Police Station after a thorough enquiry let us to go as there was no fault of him. He has further stated that, but, again on 05.07.2013, i.e., after two months, they called for enquiry on doubt basis and seized the said Bus, then, released and it is no doubt, it is a concocted story of the Petitioners and the Police Officials about the alleged accident. He has further stated that, though there is no cause of action as against their Corporation, but, the Petitioners have filed a false case by concocting the documents with the help of Police with an intention to extract huge amount from their Corporation. He has further stated in his cross-examination that, at the time of accident, he was driving the offending Bus from Mysore to Bangalore and on that day, he left Mysore at 9-30 p.m., and he had to reach Bangalore 11-00- 11-30 p.m., and at the time of inspection of the said vehicle, he was not present and though he lodged a complaint before the Police, the Police refused to take it.
14 MVC No.2386/2015SCCH-7
13. But, based on the grounds that, the Petitioners have not examined the eye witness of the accident in question, which caused to their son as alleged and the evidence elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination by the Respondent and based on the evidence of R.W.1 as narrated above and also on the ground that, the brother of the Petitioner No.2 had lodged the complaint in respect of the accident in question, which caused to the deceased, i.e., nearest relative of the said deceased, the above said oral evidence of P.W.1, which has been stated by him in the examination-in-chief cannot be thrown away and it cannot be said that, the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 as well as its driver, i.e., the R.W.1, never involved in the said road traffic accident, which caused to the deceased Raghavendra Dattathreya Hegde, but, they are falsely implicated in the said road traffic accident only to claim compensation and the entire negligence is on the part of the deceased in riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05- HV-4633, as, to consider their case as well as oral evidence of P.W.1, the Petitioners have produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Crime Details Form along with Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.4 Spot Hand Sketch, Ex.P.5 MVI Report, Ex.P.6 Post Mortem Report, Ex.P.7 Inquest and Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet, which clearly disclosed that, at the time of accident, the deceased was riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA- 05-HV-4623 on the extreme left side of the road and the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 came with very high speed, rash and negligent manner by its driver, i.e., the R.W.1 and dashed to the Motor Cycle on its behind and due to the 15 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 said impact, the deceased fell down and had sustained severe fatal injuries all over his body and he died on the accidental spot itself and the entire negligence is on the part of the R.W.1 in driving the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170, which is clear from the following discussion. Further, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, the Motor Cycle, KSRTC Bus and Car were involved in the alleged accident. Further, no question or suggestions put to P.W.2, who is a Complainant as well as nearest relative of the said deceased, by the Respondent during the course of cross-examination in respect of Ex.P.2 Complaint. Further, the R.W.1 has produced Ex.R.1 Identity Card and Ex.R.2 D.L. relating to him, which clearly disclosed that, at the time of accident, the R.W.1 was driving the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 having a valid driving licence. Further, the R.W.1 in his cross- examination has clearly stated that, he has not lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police in respect of the accident in question as against the deceased and the Police have seized the Bus two months after the accident and have recorded his statement and at the time of drawing mahazar, he was present on the accidental spot and though he lodged a complaint before the Police, the Police refused to take it. He has further stated that, the Police have filed a Charge Sheet as against him in respect of the accident in question and he has not challenged the very registration of criminal case as against him by the Police in respect of the accident in question and also the filing of the Charge Sheet as against him in the said criminal case, by preferring an Appeal before the Hon'ble Appellate Court. From the 16 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 said evidence of R.W.1, it is made crystal clear that, to consider his evidence, which has been stated by him in the examination-in- chief, no legal steps is taken by the R.W.1 as against the deceased or the driver of the Car. If really, there was no negligence on the part of the R.W.1 in driving the offending Bus in the commission of the said road traffic accident, he could have definitely taken a legal steps as against the deceased by lodging a complaint before the Higher Officer of the concerned Police and he could have definitely challenged the very registration of the criminal case filed by the jurisdictional Police as against him as well as the very filing of the Charge Sheet filed by the said Police as against him, by preferring an appeal or revision before the Hon'ble Appellate Court. But, no such legal attempt has been made by the R.W.1, which clearly implies that, the entire negligence is on his part in the commission of the said road traffic accident, which caused to the deceased.
14. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint clearly disclosed that, the P.W.2, who is the nearest relative of the deceased, i.e., the brother of the Petitioner No.2, had lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before the Ramanagara Traffic Police as against the driver of the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170, i.e., the R.W.1 and the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.CAZ-3828, by alleging that, on 02.05.2013 at 1.30 a.m., in front of BGS Blind School, near Janapadaloka, B.M. Road, Ramanagara Taluk, the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 and Car bearing Registration No.CAZ-3828 came with very high speed, rash and negligent 17 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 manner by its respective drivers and dashed to the Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-HV-4633, which came from Mysore towards Bangalore and due to the said impact, the rider of the Motor Cycle, namely, Raghavendra Dathreya Hegde fell down along with the said Motor Cycle on the road and died on the accidental spot itself and the said dead body was shifted to Ramanagara Government Hospital and as such, he prayed to take necessary legal action as against the drivers of the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 and Car bearing Registration No.CAZ-3828 and based on Ex.P.2 Complaint, the said Police have registered a criminal case as against both the drivers of the said respective vehicles for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC under Crime No.64/2013. It is also clear from the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint that, there is no delay as such in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint by the Complainant in respect of the accident caused to the deceased.
15. The contents of Ex.P.3 Crime Details Form along with Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.4 Spot Hand Sketch and Ex.P.5 MVI Report further clearly disclosed that, at the time of accident, the deceased was riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA- 05-HV-4633 on the extreme left side of the road and there was no negligence on his part in the commission of the said road traffic accident, but, the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to it on its hind portion and due to which, the deceased had sustained severe grievous injuries and died on the 18 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 accidental spot itself and the said offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 as well as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic accident. It is also clearly shown in Ex.P.4 Spot Hand Sketch that, the accident was taken place on the extreme left side of the road. The damages caused to the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F- 170, Car bearing Registration No.CAZ-3828 and Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.kA-05-HV-4633 are clearly shown in Ex.P.5 MVI Report, which clearly disclosed about the terrific impact of the said road traffic accident. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.5 MVI Report that, the said accident was not occurred due to the mechanical defects of the said vehicles.
16. The contents of Ex.P.6 Postmortem Report and Ex.P.7 Inquest further clearly disclosed that, in the said road traffic accident, the deceased had sustained severe grievous injuries all over his body and due to which itself, he died on the accidental spot and the cause of death is due to injuries sustained politrama.
17. The contents of Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, it is found that, due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 by its driver, i.e., the R.W.1, the said road traffic accident was taken place on 02.05.2013 at about 1.30 p.m., in front of B.G.S. Blind School, Bangalore - Mysore Road, Ramanagara Town, which dashed to the Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05- HV-4633, which was proceeding on its front and due to the said impact, the rider of the said Motor Cycle, namely, Raghavendra 19 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 Dathareya Hegde, fell down on the road along with the Motor Cycle and had sustained severe grievous injuries on his head, face, hands and legs and died on the accidental spot itself and thereafter, the said offending KSRTC Bus dashed to the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.CAZ-3828 and the Car bearing Registration No.CAZ-3828 dashed to the hind portion of the offending KSRTC Bus and due to which, the said Car sustained damages and as such, after thorough investigation, the Investigation Officer has filed a charge sheet as against the driver of the said offending K.S.R.T. Bus for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. There is no allegation leveled by the Investigation Officer in Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet about the negligence on the part of the deceased in the commission of the said road traffic accident, while he was riding the Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-HV-4633 at the time of accident.
18. From the above said material evidence, both oral and documentary, it is clearly proved that, the entire negligence is on the part of the R.W.1 in driving the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 in the commission of the said road traffic accident and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-HV-4633 and the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 as well as its driver, i.e., the R.W.1, are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the deceased died due to the accidental injuries on the accidental 20 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 spot itself. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
19. ISSUE NO.3 :- The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.15 SSLC Marks Card relating to the deceased, which disclosed that, his date of birth is on 17.04.1991. The date of accident is on 03.05.2013. On perusal of the said dates, it appears that, at the time of accident, the deceased was 22 years old. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as 22 years at the time of accident.
20. The P.W.1 has stated that, prior to the date of accident, his son was hale and healthy and his son was studying 3rd Semester Mechanical Engineer at BMS College of Engineering, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru and his son was working as a Product Engineer Assistant in Gramtechnet, Margosa Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore, with salary of Rupees 13,000/- per month. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.9 Letter dated 02.01.2013 issued by Gram Tech Net, Ex.P.10 Letter dated 01.06.2013 issued by Gram Tech Net, Ex.P.11 Certificate dated 03.06.2013, Ex.P.15 SSLC Marks Card and Ex.P.16 PUC Marks Card relating to deceased. Further, the P.W.1 in his cross- examination has stated that, at the time of accident, his deceased son was a student, i.e., he was studying in 3rd Semester B.E. Mechanical Engineering at BMS College and his deceased son was doing part time work in evening hours and Gram Tech Net Company is belonging to the younger brother of his wife. He has further stated that, by way of cash, his deceased son was receiving salary from the said company. The Petitioners have examined the P.W.2, who is a brother of the Petitioner No.2, who is also the 21 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 Managing Partner of Gram Tech Net, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that, one Mr. Raghavendra Dattathreya Hegde was joined their Company on 02.01.2013 for part time job and he was working as a Product Engineering Assistant till his death and he was getting salary of Rupees 13,000/- per month and their Company has issued him an Appointment Letter and Salary Certificate. The P.W.2 has produced Ex.P.20 Identity Card relating to him, Ex.P.21 Value Added Tax Registration Certificate and Ex.P.22 Performance and Credit Rating Certificate relating to him. He has further stated in his cross-examination that, deceased is a son of his own elder sister and he has been running his Company in a rented building and 10 persons are working in his Company and he has issued the Identity Card to his workers and he had also issued Identity Card to the deceased and he has been maintaining the attendance register relating to his workers in data basis of log in and the deceased was a part time worker in their Company. He has further stated that, except Appointment Letter and Salary Certificate, he has also documents to show that, the deceased was working in their Company, which is log in and by way of cash, he had paid the salary to the deceased by obtaining his signature on the copy of pay slip and he had obtain signature of the deceased on the agreement, wherein, his signature is also found and about 3 months, the deceased worked in their Company. From the said oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as well as contents of the said material documents, it clearly goes to show that, at the time of accident, the deceased was studying in 3rd Semester Mechanical Engineering at BMS College of Engineering and he was also doing part time work in Gram Tech 22 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 Net by drawing salary of Rupees 13,000/- p.m. No doubt, the P.W.2 is a close relative of the said deceased and except Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 Letters, neither the Petitioners nor P.W.2 produced any Attendance Register, Identity Card issued by the said Company in favour of the deceased and Pay Slips, to show that, at the time of accident, the deceased was working in the said Company by drawing salary of Rupees 13,000/- p.m. But, it no way affects to consider the avocation and income of the deceased at the time of accident, as, Ex.P.9, Ex.P.10, Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16 as well as oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are itself sufficient to consider that, at the time of accident, the deceased was studying in 3rd Semester Mechanical Engineering at BMS College of Engineering and also working part time job as a Product Engineer Assistant in Gram Tech Net by drawing salary of Rupees 13,000/- p.m. More so, the Petitioners have produced Ex.P.12 Certificate dated 22.05.2013 issued by Syndicate Bank, Ex.P.13 Statement of Account relating to Syndicate Bank and Ex.P.14 Statement of Account of Co-operative Bank, which clearly disclosed that, by obtaining a loan from the said Banks, the said deceased was studying Mechanical Engineering, which disclosed about the financial status of the Petitioners to give education to their son and as such, the part time work along with his education as stated by the P.W.1 can very well be believed and accept. Further, the P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief itself has clearly stated that, at the time of education of his son, need not to work in a Company for salary, but, when there was increasing debt, he was forcibly joined to the Company as a part time worker and he was earning Rupees 13,000/- per month. Further, at the time of accident, the 23 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 Petitioner was 22 years old. The Petitioners by examining the P.W.2 have clearly proved the income of the deceased. Hence, the income of the deceased is considered as Rupees 13,000/- p.m., at the time of accident.
21. The P.W.1 has stated that, he had a bright future on the development of his son and his education carrier was very good along with his academic carrier and he had started professional carrier also. He has further stated that, he is a poor agriculturist and his future was totally depending on the development of his son and the agriculture was not so prospective and hence, he and his family were forced to depend on his son. He has further stated that, now all burdens, viz., education loan, agriculture loan with cost and interest fall on him and their family is running with economical problems and now it is difficult to maintain his family and on the death of his son, nobody is supporting them and at the same time, his wife is a house wife and non-earning member and totally they had 3 issues and out of which, two are elder daughters and they are married and if his son did not die, his family would have been enjoying with higher status in the society. He has further stated that, at the time of education of his son Raghavendra, need not to work in a company for salary, but, when there was increasing debt, he was forcibly joined to the company as a part time worker and he was earning Rupees 13,000/- per month and now on his death, the total economic status of his family destroyed once for all and his son was a bright student and was studious in nature and the most competent worker too and if he is alive, his family would have 24 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 been enjoying with love and affection, moral support and social and higher economic support.
22. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, the Petitioner No.1, being a father and the Petitioner No.2 being a mother of the said deceased, are the legal representatives of the said deceased and since the Petitioner No.2 is a mother of the deceased, she is a dependent upon the said deceased. While answering Issue No.2, this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of the R.W.1 in driving the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 in the commission of the said road traffic accident and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-HV-4633 and the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 as well as its driver, i.e., the R.W.1, are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the deceased died due to the accidental injuries on the accidental spot itself. Hence, both Petitioners being legal representatives and the Petitioner No.2 being a dependent upon the said deceased are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
23. As per the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others) and as the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident, towards future prospects 50% of the income has to be added. So, 50% of Rupees 13,000/- comes to Rupees 6,500/-. Therefore, the income 25 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 of the deceased comes to Rupees 19,500/- p.m. (Rs.13,000/- + 6,500/-).
24. The Petitioner No.2 is considered as a dependent of the deceased. Therefore, deceased left behind one dependent. As per the principles laid down in ILR 2012 KAR 2859 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd., represented by Senior Division Manager V/s Sri.David. T. and Another), whenever there is a sole dependent, deduction of 50% towards personal expenses is proper. Therefore, considering the number of the dependent, i.e., 1, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, i.e., Rupees 9,750/- (50% of Rs.19,500/-). Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rupees 9,750/- (Rupees 19,500/- (-) Rupees 9,750/-). The multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased, i.e., 22 years, is 18 as per Sarala Varma's Case. Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rupees 21,06,000/- (Rs.9,750/- x 12 x 18). Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for Rupees 21,06,000/- towards loss of dependency due to death of Raghavendra Dattathreya Hegde S/o. Dattathreya Ramachandra Hegde.
25. The P.W.1 has stated that, he has spent around Rupees 20,000/- for the transportation of dead body and Rupees 1,00,000/- towards obsequies ceremony. In this regard, the Petitioners have not produced any scrap of paper.
26. As per the principles laid down in the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others), loss of love and affection has to be compensated by 26 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 awarding Rupees 25,000/- and funeral expenses should be Rupees 25,000/-. As this Tribunal has already observed that, the Petitioner No.1 is a father and the Petitioner No.2 is a mother of the deceased. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rupees 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rupees 25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
27. It is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 5,000/- towards transportation expenses of the dead body of deceased and Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for Rupees 5,000/- towards transportation expenses of the dead body of the deceased and Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of estate.
28. In this way, the Petitioners are entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 21,06,000-00
2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000-00
3. Loss of Love and affection Rs. 25,000-00
4. Expenses of transportation Rs. 5,000-00 of dead body
5. Loss of Estate Rs. 20,000-00 TOTAL Rs. 21,81,000-00
29. In all, the Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 21,81,000/- along with interest at the 27 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 rate of 9% per annum on the above said sum from the date of petition till payment.
30. While answering Issue No.2, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of the R.W.1 in driving the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 in the commission of the said road traffic accident and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05- HV-4633 and the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 as well as its driver, i.e., the R.W.1, are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the deceased died due to the accidental injuries on the accidental spot itself. The Petitioners have clearly mentioned in the cause title of the petition that, the Respondent is a R.C. Owner of the offending K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170. The same has not been disputed by the Respondent in his written statement. From this materials, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the Respondent is the Registered Owner of the said offending KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170. At the time of accident, the R.W.1 was a driver of the said offending KSRTC Bus, which is clear from the evidence of R.W.1 itself. The R.W.1 has also produced Ex.R.1 Identity Card. There is no allegation leveled as against the driver of the offending KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170, i.e., the R.W.1, by the Investigation Officer in Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet that, at the time of accident, he was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of offending Bus. Further, the R.W.1 has 28 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 produced Ex.R.2 Driving Licence relating to him, which disclosed that, at the time of accident, the R.W.1 was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of offending Bus. Since, the Respondent was a R.C. Owner of the offending KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-11-F-170 at the time of accident, he was also an internal insurer of the said offending Bus. Under such circumstances, the Respondent being the R.C. Owner and internal Insurer of the offending KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA- 11-F-170, is liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioners. In view of the above said reasons and findings on Issues, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners are aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
31. ISSUE NO.4 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rupees 21,81,000/-
with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 29 MVC No.2386/2015 SCCH-7 the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent.
The Respondent shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within two months from the date of this Order.
The Petitioners shall share the compensation amount in the ratio of 20:80.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation, entire share relating to the Petitioner No.1 and 50% share relating to the Petitioner No.2 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques, on proper identification.
Remaining 50% share relating to the Petitioner No.2 shall be kept in FD in her name, in any nationalized Bank of her choice, for a period of three years.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
30 MVC No.2386/2015SCCH-7 Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 15th day of December, 2016.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Sri. Dattatreya Ramachandra Hegde P.W.2 : Sri. Parameshwara Bhat
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 : True copy of Crime Details Form along
with Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.4 : True copy of Spot Hand Sketch
Ex.P.5 : True copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.6 : True copy of Spot Hand Sketch
Ex.P.7 : True copy of Postmortem Report
Ex.P.8 : True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.9 : Letter dated 02.01.2013 issued by Gram
Tech Net
Ex.P.10 : Letter dated 01.06.2013 issued by Gram
Tech Net
Ex-P.11 : Certificate dated 03.06.2013 issued by
BMS College of Engineering
Ex.P.12 : Certificate dated 22.05.2013 issued
by Syndicate Bank
Ex.P.13 : Statement of Account relating to
31 MVC No.2386/2015
SCCH-7
Syndicate Bank
Ex.P.14 : Statement of Account relating to
Co-Operative Bank
Ex.P.15 : Notarised xerox copy of SSLC Marks
Card relating to Raghavendra
Dattatreya Hegde
Ex.P.16 : Notarised xerox copy of PUC Marks
Card relating to Raghavendra
Dattatreya Hegde
Ex.P.17 : Notarised xerox copy of Ration Card
Ex.P.18 : Notarised xerox copy of Aadhaar Card
relating to Dattatreya Ramachandra Hegde Ex.P.19 : Notarised xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Bharathi Dattatreya Hegde Ex.P.20 : Notarised xerox copy of Identity Card relating to Parameshwar Bhat Ex.P.21 : Notarised xerox copy of Value Added Tax Registration Certificate relating to Parameshwar Bhat Ex.P.22 : Notarised xerox copy of Performance and Credit Rating Certificate relating to Parameshwar Bhat
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENT :-
R.W.1 : Sri. Shivanna. H.M.
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENT :-
Ex.R.1 : Notarised xerox copy of Identity Card
Ex.R.2 : Notarised xerox copy of D.L., relating
to Shivanna. H.M.,
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR)
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.