Bangalore District Court
Sarvamangala vs Sharathkumar M.J on 24 February, 2025
KABC020091332023
IN THE COURT OF XIX ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
BENGALURU (SCCH-17)
PRESENT: SRI. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L., LL.M.,
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & ACJM,
BENGALURU
Dated: This the 24th day of February- 2025
M.V.C.No.1998/2023
Petitioner/s Smt. Sarvamangala,
Aged about 53 years,
W/o. Late Jagadhisha M.S.
R/o. Motaganahalli ( V) & (P),
2nd block, Soluru Hobli.
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara Dist- 562 127
(By Pleader Smt. S. Malathi., Adv.,)
V/s.
Respondents 1.Mr. Sharathkumar M.J.
S/o. Sri. Jagadisha M.S.
R/o. No.144, Motaganahalli (v) & (p)
2nd block, Soluru (H),
Magadi Taluk,
SCCH-17 2 MVC 1998/2023
Ramanagara District- 562 127
2. Mr. Akshara V. Gowda,
R/o. No.227, 2nd main ( old 3rd 'C'
main, 6th block, Jayanagara,
Bengaluru- 70
(Res. No.1 & 2 Exparte)
3. The Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
No.28, 5th floor, East wing,
Centenary Building, M.G. Road,
Bangalore - 560 001
(By Pleader Sri.S. Maheswara., Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
This judgment is emerged consequent upon the petition filed by the petitioner U/S 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on account of death of Jagadisha M.S., in a road accident.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, are as follows:
On 23.10.2022 at about 1.45 p.m., the deceased Jagadisha was proceeding on the motor cycle bearing SCCH-17 3 MVC 1998/2023 No.KA-05-KF-5905 as a pillion rider and when he was proceeding on Tumakuru road, near Sathyamangala bridge, NH-48 road, the rider of the said vehicle has ridden the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the wall of the bridge. Due to the impact the deceased thrown out on the service road 30 feet below the over bridge and consequently he sustained severe head injuries and multiple fractures.
Immediately he was shifted to Siddaganga Hospital, Tumakuru and later shifted to Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru and then to BGS GIMS Hospital, but in spite of best treatment the deceased succumbed to the said injuries on 26.11.2022.
The petitioner has spent huge amount towards medical expenses, transportation of dead body and other incidental expenses.
At the time of accident, the deceased was doing business (running fertilizer shop) and earning SCCH-17 4 MVC 1998/2023 Rs.40,000/- p.m. Due to untimely death of deceased the petitioner has suffered mentally and physically, she has lost her lost her care taker.
The petitioner is the wife of the deceased. The respondent No.1 is the owner, respondent No.2 is the insurance policy holder and respondent No.3 is insurer of said vehicle are jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence prays to award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest.
3. After service of notices, respondent No.1 & 2 remained absent hence, they were placed exparte.
Respondent No.3- insurance company appeared through their counsel and filed its written statement by denying the issuance of policy to the motor cycle bearing No. KA-05-KF-5905 and the liability of this respondent, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further contended that at the time of accident the rider of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective SCCH-17 5 MVC 1998/2023 driving licence and also contended that there is delay of 13 days in lodging the complaint. At the time of accident, the deceased was not wearing helmet hence, the deceased has violated Sec. 129 of MV Act as such, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. Further denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The compensation as claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence the respondent No.3 prays to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival contentions, the following issues were framed by this court:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that deceased Jagadisha M.S died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.10.2022 at about 1.45 p.m. on NH-48 Tumkur road, near Sathyamangala bridge, Sathyamangala, Tumkur due to the rash and negligence riding of the motor cycle bearing No. KA-05-KF-
5905 by its rider?
SCCH-17 6 MVC 1998/2023
2. Whether the petitioner proves that they are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
4. What order or award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner is examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 and Ex.R1. Also examined two witness as PW.2 & 3 and got marked Ex.P21 to 29. Third respondent examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R2 & 3.
6. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material evidence that is available on record.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1: In the affirmative,
Issue No.2: In the affirmative,
Issue No.3: In the affirmative,
SCCH-17 7 MVC 1998/2023
Issue No.4: As per final orders
for the following.-
REASONS
ISSUE NO.1;
8. The petitioner to prove her claim has produced certified copies of FIR, complaint, requisition, statement of witnesses, spot mahazar along with sketch, IMV report, inquest report along with sketch, seizer mahazar, IMV notice and reply, IMV report, inquest report, PM report, forensic report and charge sheet, which are marked under Ex.P.1 to 14.
9. As per the documents produced by the petitioner Ex.P1- FIR was came to be registered on the basis of the information given by the relative of the deceased. In the said complaint, the first informant alleged the rash and negligent riding by the rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA-05-KF-5905. The Ex.P3 is requisition filed by the investigating officer by invoking sec. 304 (A) of IPC in lieu of death of the injured. At the SCCH-17 8 MVC 1998/2023 time of registration of FIR the said Jagadisha was under
the treatment, but in lieu of death of said Jagadisha Sec.
304(A) was invoked by the IO as per Ex.P3.
10. In continuation of investigation, the IO conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P5 and also prepared rough sketch as per Ex.P6. On perusal of Ex.P4 to 6 the accident spot was on the bridge. But the IO has not found any marks of the accident at the time of spot mahazar.
11. The petitioner further produced Ex.P7 seizer mahazar and Ex.P10 IMV report wherein it discloses that the motor cycle bearing No. KA-05-KF-5905 has got damages in its front right side which evidentiates that the said motor cycle dashed against the wall of the bridge.
12. The Ex.P14 is the charge sheet wherein after the detailed investigation the Io has opined that the accident was caused by the negligence of rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA-05-KF-5905 and the deceased has SCCH-17 9 MVC 1998/2023 succumbed to the injuries which he sustained in RTA dated 23.10.2022.
13. The respondent No.3 insurance company has taken specific defence that the motor cycle bearing No. KA-05-KF-5905 is not involved in the accident, and the deceased has got injuries by self fall from height but the false case is registered and created against the motor cycle bearing No. KA-05-KF-5905 after the lapse of 12 days of the alleged accident to claim the compensation. The respondent No.2 relied on the contents of Ex.R1 which says that the deceased admitted to their hospital with alleged history of self fall from height at 2.00 p.m. The content of Ex.R1 is hereby quoted for better appreciation.
" 23/10, 3.30 p.m. alleged history of self fall from height @ 2.00 p.m.".
By relying on the said content, the respondent no.2 vehemently contends that as there is a delay of 12 days SCCH-17 10 MVC 1998/2023 in lodging the FIR, the false accident case is created by showing the involvement of motor cycle bearing No. KA- 05-KF-5905, but the deceased has got injuries from his self fall from height which is not connected with motor cycle bearing No. KA-05-KF-5905.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently argues that there is an inordinate delay of 12 days in lodging the FIR and the same cannot be brushed aside lightly, instead has to be construed as a circumstance showing that the case is an afterthought. But not every delay would move this court to view the case of the petitioners doubtfully. Because there might be genuine circumstances that could have contributed to the delay. In fact only if the delay is left unexplained the same needs to be viewed seriously. No doubt in the facts of this case, the accident occurred on 23.10.2022, but the FIR was lodged on 5.11.2022 and hence it is evident that the FIR is lodged after 12 days of occurrence of the SCCH-17 11 MVC 1998/2023 accident. But it is clearly narrated in Ex.P-2 complaint as to why the FIR was lodged belatedly by narrating that soon after the accident the injured Jagadisha was shifted to Siddaganga hospital and thereafter shifted to Sparsh Hospital, Bangalore and as it was accident caused by the son of the said Jagadisha, they were decided to not to register the case but when the said Jagadisha was not recovered the said complaint was lodged. The said explanation offered by the informant for delaying the lodging of the FIR is plausible. When the accident was caused by the son of the Jagadisha, it is common phenomena that no persons will be ready to register the case against their own relatives. In this case, as the accident was alleged caused by the son of the deceased there is a chances of thinking not to register the complaint if the injured father is recovered.
Perhaps the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others reported in AIR 2011 SC 1226, has observed thus:
SCCH-17 12 MVC 1998/2023
"The purpose of lodging the FIR in motor accident cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if there is delay, the same deserve to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.
If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground."
(Emphasis supplied by me) Hence the delay of 12 days, in the light of reasons assigned by the PW.1 and also as mentioned in the SCCH-17 13 MVC 1998/2023 Ex.P2, complaint and it cannot be considered as inordinate.
15. Further merely because the complaint was lodged belatedly, the case of the petitioner cannot be looked suspiciously if it is supported by the other cogent evidence. The first doubt on the case of the petitioner is created by the respondent No.2 by producing Ex.R1 which states that the alleged history of self fall from height. The said endorsement as per Ex.R1 was made by the team of doctors of Siddaganga Hospital in their doctors note which was made at 3.30 p.m. on 23.10.2022. On the other hand, if we perused the Ex.P27 of Sparsh Hospital, police intimation and Ex.P28 MLC register extract which were prepared on 24.10.2022 at about 1.20 a.m. it shows that the injured Jagadisha was admitted to their hospital with the alleged history of RTA at 1.45 p.m. on 23.10.2022 near Sathyamangala. Thereby, the entries in Ex.P28 was made within few SCCH-17 14 MVC 1998/2023 hours of entries of Ex.R1. The accident was occurred on 23.10.2022 in the afternoon 1.45 p.m. immediately the injured Jagadisha was taken to Siddaganga Hospital and as per Ex.R1 doctor's note of Siddaganga Hospital shows that self fall from the height. The said endorsement was made at 3.30 p.m. on 23.10.2022. But in the next page of Ex.R1 it shows that the Jagadisha has got injuries in RTA near Antharasannahalli bridge. The said endorsement is available in the Ex.R1 itself and the said endorsement in the 2nd page is made at 23.10.2022 at about 4.45 p.m. Thereafter the said injured Jagadisha was got discharged from Siddaganga Hospital and admitted to Sparsh Hospital at Bengaluru. The Ex.P27 & 28 being the police intimation and MLC register extract shows that the injured Jagadisha was admitted to their hospital with the history of RTA. Except in the first page of Ex.R1, all other documents reveals that the said Jagadisha has got injuries in RTA. This evidentiates and SCCH-17 15 MVC 1998/2023 helps the petitioner to show that the said Jagadisha got injuries in RTA by falling from the bridge.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the citations reported in;
2004 ACJ 173 Divisional Controller, MSRTC V/s. Bismillah and others, "12. On meticulous appreciation of the evidence on record, it is evident that the jurisdictional police after investigation, filed charge sheet against the driver of the MSRTC bus holding him prima facie guilty of negligence. Ex.P-1 the sketch on record clearly establishes that the MSRTC bus was proceeding from west to east from Ankalkop road to Audumbar.
The accident has taken place in the circle on the right side of the said road. The deceased was riding the motorbike from south to north i.e., from Bhilavadi to Nagthane Patha when he was about to reach the circle, the driver of the bus came extremely on the right side of the road hit the motorbike resulted in the accident. These facts are evident from the sketch on record. On close scrutiny of the Exs.P-1 and P-2(a) establishes that at the spot of accident, chalk marks have been done, the bus and the motorcycle have been removed from the road and glasses, helmet, shoe of the injured are SCCH-17 16 MVC 1998/2023 lying on the road and there are tyre marks of the bus and bloodstains of the injured on the road and the headlight of the bus is broken on the driver side, the bumper is pressed and damaged and the petrol tank of the bike is pressed on the left side and the indicator of the bike is broken. These contents found in Exs.P-1 and P-2 which corroborate with the sketch on record. On bare perusal of the above exhibits, it can be fairly inferred that the driver of the bus has gone extremely on the right side in the circle and caused the accident resulted in damage to bus and motor cycle. The contention of the corporation that the discharge summary at Ex.R-1 depict that the accident has happened due to injured slipped from the motorcycle. The said contention is required to be rejected for the reason that the discharge summary at Ex.R-1 is written by the nurse in Wanless Hospital, Miraj. The said document cannot be the sole basis to come to the conclusion that the injury has caused due to slipping from the motorcycle by the deceased. It is relevant to note that at the time of admission in the hospital, the attendant or the relative of the injured might have orally informed the hospital about the cause of injury, i.e., the injuries caused due to slipping from the motorcycle, that cannot be the sole basis to arrive at a SCCH-17 17 MVC 1998/2023 conclusion that the accident and the consequential injuries are due to slipping from the motorbike by the deceased. The jurisdictional police filed the charge sheet against the driver of the bus and the material on record clearly establishes that the accident has caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Hence,we hold that accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of MSRTC bus by its driver and the corporation is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants". In the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A. No. 8490-2010 between Kumari. Fazeelath V/s. Mr. Zubair Ahmed.
9. In addition to the above, the FIR is followed by due investigation by the police in discharge of their official duties and therefore in the absence of any material to discredit what the charge sheet says, there is a presumption of correctness of the version of the police under Section 114 read with Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 since the investigation is undertaken and regulated by the Law i.e., Cr.P.C.
Nothing worth mentioning is elicited by the respondent-insurance company in the cross-examination of SCCH-17 18 MVC 1998/2023 the claimant PW1 to discredit either her version in the claim petition or the version emerging from the charge sheet papers that are marked in the evidence.
16. By applying the above quoted precedent to the case on hand, only in the first sheet of Ex.R1 it is mentioned as self fall from height. The next page of Ex.R1 clearly says that the injured Jagadisha has got injuries in RTA near bridge. The further entries in the next hospital as per Ex.P27 & 28 are made within few hours of the accident. This shows that only in the first page of Ex.R1 it is written as self fall and in other documents it shows that the said Jagadisha has got injuries in RTA. Only relying on the first page of Ex.R1 it cannot be held that the said Jagadisha has not sustained injuries in RTA. The other documents along with the charge sheet and statement of witnesses establishes that the Jagadisha sustained injuries in RTA. The Ex.P10 IMV report which shows the damages on the said vehicle. SCCH-17 19 MVC 1998/2023
17. By combined reading of the medical records and the contents of charge sheet establishes that the said Jagadisha has got injuries as claimed by the petitioner. It is interesting to note that no doubt the FIR was lodged belatedly, but in all the medical records, it is clearly mentioned that the history narrated to the doctors by injured at the very first instance, as can be seen from Ex.R1 doctor's note of Siddaganga Hospital, Ex.P27 & 28 police intimation and MLC register extract shows that the said Jagadisha sustained injuries in an RTA involving a motor cycle bearing No. KA-05-KF-5905 near Sathyamangala bridge, Tumkur on 23.10.2022. This version has not changed since then; and even in FIR the very same version can be seen. In the Ex.P27 & 28 police intimation and MLC register extract the occurrence of accident is also properly explained and it corroborates with the contents of Ex.P1 FIR and Ex.P.2 complaint. Under such circumstances, this court is of the firm SCCH-17 20 MVC 1998/2023 opinion that the delay is certainly backed by genuine reasons. Moreover where the standard of proof required is preponderance of probabilities and the facts before the court probablizes the reasons assigned by PW.1 for delaying the lodging of the FIR as such this court cannot uphold the contention of the respondent No.2 regarding the delay by considering the condition of the petitioner after the accident.
18. Wherefore in the absence of any cogent evidence which could rebut the assertions made by PW-1 on oath supported by Ex.P-14 which is the charge sheet and the documents annexed therewith, this court should not have any impediment to conclude that the said documents prima-facie suffice to hold that accident, occurred due to rash and actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No. KA-05-KF- 5905. The view taken by this Court that the police records are prima- facie proof in support of the case of SCCH-17 21 MVC 1998/2023 the petitioner, is supported by the decision rendered in Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others reported in 2013 (4) T.A.C 5 (S.C.), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held thus:
In view of the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal should have considered both oral and documentary evidence referred to supra and appreciated the same in the proper perspective and recorded the finding on the contentious issue No. 1 & 2 in the affirmative. But it has recorded the finding in the negative on the above issues by adverting to certain statements of evidence of AW-1 and referring to certain alleged discrepancies in the FIR without appreciating entire evidence of AW-1 and AW-2 on record properly and also not assigned valid reasons in not accepting their testimony. The Tribunal should have taken into consideration the pleadings of the parties and legal evidence on record in its entirety and held that the accident took place on 19.07.1992, due to which Tikaram sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same and the case was registered by the Uniara Police Station under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC read with Sections 133 and 181 of the M.V. Act against the first and second respondents. The registration of FIR and filing of the charge- sheet against respondent Nos.1 & 2 are not in dispute, therefore, the Tribunal should have no option but to accept the entire evidence on record and recorded the finding on the contentious issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the appellants.
(Emphasis supplied by me)
19. The fact of accident is established before this tribunal. The Ex.P11 inquest report and Ex.P12 SCCH-17 22 MVC 1998/2023 postmortem report also establishes that Jagadisha died due to the injuries sustained by him in the said RTA dated 23.10.2022.
20. It is necessary to reassert that in a claim for compensation filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is expected to prove the incident on basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities and the view taken by this Court is fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others which is reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 has observed that, it is necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of SCCH-17 23 MVC 1998/2023 preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishnappa and another reported in 2001 ACJ 1105, where the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka considering the fact that the rider of the offending vehicle was not examined to prove any contributory negligence on the part of scooterist held that the accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the rider of the offending van.
21. In view of the ratio laid down in the authorities referred to above and applying the settled principle of law to the case at hand, which is further supported by the oral and documentary evidence adduced by PW-1, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident leading to this case indeed occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-05-KF-5905 resulting in the death of SCCH-17 24 MVC 1998/2023 one Jagadisha by sustaining injuries. Therefore Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2
22. As held herein above, the petitioners have proved that Jagadisha on 26.11.2022 due to the injuries sustained in RTA, which is caused by the rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-05-KF-5905.
23. As contended in the petition, that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased. The respondents do not specifically deny the relationship of petitioner with deceased. The petitioner to prove her relationship with the deceased, has produced the notarized copies of Aadhar cards of petitioner with deceased which are marked at Ex.P.15. During the course of recording the evidence the notarized copies of Aadhaar cards are compared with the original documents and found correct. SCCH-17 25 MVC 1998/2023
24. As per these documents the petitioner is the wife of the deceased, but the respondents do not dispute the relationship of the petitioners with deceased.
25. In the absence of contradictory evidence the evidence of the petitioner is to be accepted and it is considered that, petitioner being the wife is the dependent of deceased and she is entitled for compensation. Accordingly, issue No.2 answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3:
26. As held herein above, the petitioner proved that Jagadisha died on 26.11.2022 due to the injuries sustained in RTA, which is caused by the rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-05-KF-5905.
27. Now the quantum of compensation is to be decided. The petitioner has produced Aadhaar card of the deceased as per Ex.P15- as per the said document the deceased was born on 01.01.1963, the accident took place in the year-2022, If it is considered, as on the date SCCH-17 26 MVC 1998/2023 of the accident the age of the deceased was 59 years. Hence this court is accepting the age of the deceased as 59 years.
28. As stated in the petition deceased was doing business( running fertilizer shop) and earning Rs.40,000/-. To prove the said fact, the petitioner has produced certificate of verification as per Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 photographs which shows that the said Jagadisha was running the fertilizers shop. The Ex.P18 are the RTCs shows that the agricultural lands were standing in the name of Jagadisha. But no evidence is placed by the petitioner by showing the exact income of the deceased. As such, the notional income of the deceased is considered as Rs.15,500/- p.m. as the accident is of the year 2022 and the annual income comes to Rs.1,86,000/- .
29. Coming to the next point, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that as the deceased was SCCH-17 27 MVC 1998/2023 married the 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and not the 50%. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karanataka in MFA No. 4016-2022 between Smt. Rama V/ss. Nagaraja M. and another, "6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and learned counsel for respondent- Insurance Company, the accident occurred on 10.04.2018 and age of the deceased as on the date of occurrence of accident was 55 years. The tribunal taken the income at Rs.9,000/-, whereas the notional income chart stipulates the income of Rs.12,500/- per month for the accident of the year 2018. The tribunal rightly taken 10% towards future prospects, which does not call for interference. The tribunal has deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
However, it ought to have taken 1/3rd, as the deceased was a married person. The appropriate multiplier would be '11', which is rightly applied by the tribunal and the same does not call for interference. Therefore, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs.12,10,044/- (Rs.12,500/- + 10% = SCCH-17 28 MVC 1998/2023 Rs.13,750/- - 1/3rd = Rs.9,167/- x 12 x 11)".
30. By relying on the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that one third of the income has to be considered towards personal expenses and not ½ as the deceased was married. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent also argued by giving stress on the judgment Sarala Varma and Ors., V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, In the judgment reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 between Sarala Varma and Ors., V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows;
"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one- third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-SCCH-17 29 MVC 1998/2023
fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one- fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six".
31. In the judgment of Sarala Varma and Ors., V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd where the number of dependent family members is 2 to
3. By applying the said precedent of Hon'ble Apex Court, in this case it is shown as only the wife as the dependent of the deceased. When there is sole dependent, ½ of the income has to be deducted towards the personal expenses. Only when a person is married has two to three dependents, then the personal expenses of 1/3rd has to be deducted. As such, by applying the precedent as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Varma and Ors., V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, SCCH-17 30 MVC 1998/2023 as there is a sole dependent ½ of the income has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased.
32. As per Sarala varma case the proper multiplier applicable to the age of deceased is 9. Since the deceased left his wife who is a sole legal heir, the half of the income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses, then the total loss of dependency would be Rs.8,37,000/- (Rs.15,500/- X 12 X 9= Rs.16,74,000/- minus half of the income (Rs.8,37,000/-) = Rs.8,37,000/-).
33. In Civil Special leave petition (Civil No.25590/2014 dated 31.10.2016 (National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "While determining the income, in case the deceased was self- employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of SCCH-17 31 MVC 1998/2023 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
34. In another reported decision in Civil Appeal Nos.19-20 of 2021 in between Kirti and Another , V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., as follows;
"When it comes to the second category of cases, relating to notional income for non-earning victims, it is my opinion that the above principle applies with equal vigor, particularly with respect to homemakers.
Once notional income is determined, the effects of inflation would equally apply. Further, no one would ever say that the improvements in skills that come with experience do not take place in the domain of work within the household. It is worth nothing that, although not extensively discussed, this Court has SCCH-17 32 MVC 1998/2023 been granting future prospects even in cases pertaining to notional income, as has been highlighted by my learned brother, Surya Kant, J., in his opinion (Hem Raj V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 15 SCC 654: Sunita Tokas V. New India Insurance Company Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 688)".
35. As per the above decisions 10% out of loss of dependency has to be granted towards future prospects which would Rs.83,700/-.
36. The Petitioner is the wife deceased Jagadisha. The wife petitioner lost her loving husband, companion at the age of 53 years and she has to the live remaining part of her life without him. Therefore she is entitled to a sum of Rs.44,000/- (Rs.44,000/-. Rs.40,000/x 10% hike every three years from 2017 as per Pranay Sethi Case) under the head of loss of consortium. Further, I inclined to award a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- SCCH-17 33 MVC 1998/2023 towards loss of love and affection (this amount is calculated as per Pranaya Sethi case with enhanced rate at 10% after three years).
37. TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENSES; The petitioner has produced medical bills as per Ex.P20 for Rs.13,74,606/-. The petitioner also produced medi claim details wherein it shows that out of Rs.14,51,637/- inpatient bill of Sparsh Hospital Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by Medi Assist Health Insurance. The Manager of the billing section examined as PW.2. He deposed that out of Rs.14,51,636/-, Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by Medi Assist Health Insurance and another Rs.2,11,636/- was given discount by the hospital and remaining Rs.9,40,000/- was paid by the relatives of the deceased. The inpatient bill marked at sl. No.10 of Ex.P20 discloses the same details that out of Rs.14,51,636/- Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by Medi Assist Health Insurance and another Rs.2,11,636/- was given discount by the hospital and SCCH-17 34 MVC 1998/2023 remaining Rs.9,40,000/- was paid by the relatives of the deceased. The said details are very much available in sl. No.76 of Ex.P20. Hence, Rs.9,40,000/- has to be reimbursed in the inpatient bill of Sparsh Hospital. These medical bills are supported with prescriptions and inpatient case details as marked in Ex.P29 and Ex.P23 payment receipts. By considering the nature of the injuries the petitioner is entitled for the reimbursement for the said amount by rounding off the same for Rs.13,74,610/- under the head of medical expenses.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 8,37,000/-
2. Loss of future prospects Rs. 83,700/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 44,000/-
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/-
5. Towards loss of estate Rs. 16,500/-
6. Towards loss of love and Rs. 50,000/-
affection
7. Towards medical expenses Rs. 13,74,610/-
Total Rs. 24,22,310/-SCCH-17 35 MVC 1998/2023
38. Liability:- According to the petitioner the respondent No.1 is the R.C. owner, respondent No.2 is the insurance policy holder and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The respondent No.3 in its objection statement has denied the issuance of policy to the motor cycle bearing No. KA-05-KF-5905. The respondent No.3 examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R2 & 3. As per Ex.R3 the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further the respondent No.3 insurance company has not made out any grounds by showing the violation of policy conditions. Hence, the respondent No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and the respondent No.3 insurance company shall indemnify the compensation on behalf of the respondent No.1 & 2. The petitioner is entitle for compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. except on the amount awarded under the head of future SCCH-17 36 MVC 1998/2023 prospectus. Accordingly, this issue answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.4:-
39. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.24,22,310/- (Rupees Twenty four lakhs twenty two thousand three hundred and ten only).
The petitioner is entitled for the interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,. from the date of petition till the realization from respondents except on the amount awarded under the head of future prospectus.
The respondent No.3 insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation SCCH-17 37 MVC 1998/2023 amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
Out of awarded amount of petitioner , 75% shall be released to petitioner, on her proper identification and remaining 25% shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in her name in any Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-. Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 24 th day of February, 2025).
KANCHI Digitally signed by KANCHI
MAYANNA GOUTAM
MAYANNA Date: 2025.03.07 15:32:12
GOUTAM +0530
(KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM)
XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& MACT, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW.1 Smt. Sarvamangala
PW.2 Sri. M. Gopal
PW.3 Miss Kalaiyarasi M.
SCCH-17 38 MVC 1998/2023
List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 Complaint Ex.P3 Requisition Ex.P4 Statement of witnesses
Ex.P5 & 6 Spot mahazar along with sketch Ex.P7 Seizer mahazar Ex.P8 & 9 IMV notice and reply Ex.P10 IMV report Ex.P11 Inquest report Ex.P12 PM report Ex.P13 Forensic report Ex.P14 Charge sheet Ex.P15 Notarised copies of Aadhaar cards Ex.P16 Notarised copy of certificate of verification Ex.P17 Photographs and CD Ex.P18 RTCs Ex.P19 Medi claim details Ex.P20 Medical bills Ex.P21 Authorisation letter Ex.P22 Inpatient bills Ex.P23 Payment receipts Ex.P24 Pharmacy bill statement Ex.P25 Insurance approval letter Ex.P26 Authorisation letter SCCH-17 39 MVC 1998/2023 Ex.P27 & Copy of MLC and police intimation 28 Ex.P29 Inpatient case details List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW.1 Thrishi Subbaiah List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Ex.R1 Admission Register extract
Ex.R2 Authorisation letter
Ex.R3 Copy of insurance policy
KANCHI Digitally signed by KANCHI
MAYANNA GOUTAM
MAYANNA Date: 2025.03.07 15:32:18
GOUTAM +0530
(KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM)
XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& MACT, BANGALORE.