Bangalore District Court
In 1. Prabhavathi vs In All 1. Gurudevaru on 5 November, 2016
BEFORE THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT BANGALORE (SCCH-16)
PRESENT: SRI. SATISH J.BALI,
B.Com., LL.M.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
(SCCH-16) Bangalore.
DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
MVC Nos.420/2016 to 422/2016
Petitioners in 1. Prabhavathi,
MVC 420/2016 W/o Late Siddaraju,
Aged about 25 years,
2. Siddaraju,
S/o Late Siddaraju,
Aged about 6 years,
3. Muthuraju,
S/o Late Siddaraju,
Aged about 4 years,
4. Kamalamma,
W/o Late Siddachari,
Aged about 54 years,
All are R/at Thimmanahosuru
Village, Lokshara Post,
Kothathi Hobli,
Mandya District.
Petitioners No.2 and 3 are
minors, hence represented by
their mother petitioner No.1.
(Sri G.M. Nagesh Kumar,
Advocate)
2 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
Petitioners in 1. Siddalingaiah @ Siddalingappa,
MVC 421/2016 S/o Late Gurusiddappa,
Aged about 47 years,
2. Shivamma,
W/o Siddalingaiah @
Siddalingappa,
Aged about 42 years,
Both are R/at Kunuru Village,
Horalagallu Post,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
(Sri G.M. Nagesh Kumar,
Advocate)
Petitioner in Siddappaji @ Siddu B.,
MVC 422/2016 S/o Basavarajachari,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No.177/B,
Thimmanahosuru Village,
Kothathi Hobli,
Mandya Taluk & District.
(Sri G.M. Nagesh Kumar,
Advocate)
V/s.
Respondents in all 1. Gurudevaru,
the cases R/at Thigalara Hosahalli Village,
Bekuppe Post,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
(Sri Nanjundswamy, Advocate)
2. The United India Insurance Co.
Ltd., Regional Office at
Motor Third party claims hub,
No.18, 5th and 6th Floors,
Krishibhavana, Hudson Circle,
3 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
Bangalore - 01.
Policy
No.09060531130160269794
period: 14-02-2014 to
13-02-2015.
(Sri B.R. Venkatesh Kamath,
Advocate)
COMMON JUDGMENT
The petitioners in MVC 420/2016 and 421/2016 being
the legal heirs of the deceased Siddaraju and Mahalinga, the
petitioner in MVC 422/2016 being the injured have filed all
claim petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1989, claiming compensation on account of death and
injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which alleged to
have been occurred on 19-08-2014.
2. The MVC 420/2016 is a case of death of Siddaraju.
The MVC 421/2016 is a case of death of Mahalinga. The MVC
422/2016 is a case of injury in respect of Siddappaji @ Siddu
B. All these petitions arising out of the same accident. Hence,
they are clubbed and common evidence was recorded and
disposed off by this common judgment.
3. The brief facts of the petition averments are as under:
4 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
On 19-08-2014 at about 9.30 p.m., the petitioner in
MVC 422/2016 and deceased in MVC 420/2016 were
proceeding on motor cycle bearing No.KA-51-EB-9431 from
Bangalore towards Mandya. When they reached near
Shivanahalli Junction road, Kanakapura-Sathnoor main
road, at that time, the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-
42-R-6415 came in a rash and negligent manner on extreme
right side from Kalegowdanadoddi Village towards
Shivanahalli side, without observing traffic rules and
regulations and suddenly in order to cross the road towards
the Pipe Line road, took his motor cycle on the right side and
dashed against the above said motor cycle of the petitioner
and caused the accident. The deceased Siddaraju in MVC
420/2016 sustained severe head injury and succumbed on
the spot itself. The dead body was shifted to Kanakapura
Government Hospital, wherein postmortem was conducted
and petitioners performed funeral by incurring expenses of
Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further case of the petitioners in MVC
420/2016 that, prior to the date of accident, the deceased
was hale and healthy and earning Rs.15,000/- per month by
way of carpentry work at HSR Layout, Bangalore which was
5 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
contributed to the maintenance of all the petitioners. Due to
sudden demise of the deceased, petitioners lost the sole bread
earning member.
4. The deceased in MVC 421/2016 by name Mahalinga
was proceeding on motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-3816
from Kalegowdanadoddi Village side towards Shivanahalli
side. When he reached near Shivanahalli Junction road,
Kanakapura-Sathnoor main road, at that time, the rider of
the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 came from
Kalegowdanadoddi Village side towards Shivanahalli in a rash
and negligent manner took his motor cycle to the extreme
right side and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased,
who was riding the above said motor cycle. Due to the result
of the accident, the deceased sustained severe head injuries
and on the way to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries.
It is further case of the petitioners that, the deceased was
shifted to Kanakapura Government Hospital, wherein after
first aid treatment, he was referred to NIMHANS Hospital. On
the way to the NIMHANS Hospital, the deceased died and
postmortem was conducted at Government Hospital,
Kanakapura. The funeral was conducted by incurring
6 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
expenses of Rs.2,00,000/-. Prior to the date of accident, the
deceased was hale and healthy and earning Rs.15,000/- per
month by way of checker work at Laguna Garments,
Kalegowdanadoddi Village which was contributed to the
maintenance of all the petitioners. Due to sudden demise of
the deceased, petitioners lost the sole bread earning member.
5. The petitioner in MVC 422/2016, who was pillion
rider in motor cycle bearing No.KA-51-EB-9431 has sustained
severe injuries all over the body and immediately he was
shifted to Government Hospital, Kanakapura, wherein he took
first aid and thereafter he was shifted to Mandya Government
Hospital, wherein he was an inpatient from 20-08-2014 to 23-
08-2014. The petitioner was discharged with an advice of
follow up treatment and he has spent merely about
Rs.1,50,000/- for his medical expenses. Prior to the date of
accident, the petitioner was working as a carpenter at
Somasunder Palya and earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
6. It is further case of the petitioners that, the accident
in question was due to rash and negligent riding of the rider
of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 against whom
the jurisdictional police have registered a case in their Crime
7 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
No.191/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 279,
338 and 304(A) of IPC. The respondent No.1 being the RC
owner of the above said vehicle and respondent No.2 being
the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation. Hence, they prayed to allow their petitions.
7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the
respondent No.1 who was the RC owner of the motor cycle
bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 died and as per order dated 23-03-
2016, he was deleted. His legal heir respondent No.3 was
brought on record.
8. In response to the notice, both the respondents
appeared and filed their objections.
9. The respondent No.2 insurance company contended
that, no policy was issued in respect of motor cycle bearing
No.KA-42-R-6415 and its liability is subject to confirmation of
above said policy. It is contended that, the liability of the
second respondent is subject to terms and conditions of the
policy such as having valid and effective driving licence,
fitness certificate and permit. The respondent No.2 further
contended that, immediately after the accident, the insured
has not intimated about the accident nor the jurisdictional
8 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
police have supplied necessary documents of the offending
vehicle and thereby there is a violation of Section 134(C) and
158(6) of M.V. Act. It is contended that, the rider of the motor
cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 had no valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of accident and there is a
breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent
denied the manner of the accident, death of both the
deceased, injuries sustained by the petitioner in MVC
422/2016 and also expenses incurred for treatment and
funeral. It is contended that, all the above said three vehicles
were involved in the accident and as such the riders of all the
three motor cycles are equally responsible for the alleged
accident. It is contended that, the owner and insurer of motor
cycle bearing No.KA-51-EB-9431 and KA-42-R-3816 were not
impleaded as party. The respondent denied the age, income
and occupation of the deceased and petitioner in MVC
422/2016 and contended that, at the time of accident, the
rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 was riding
the same carefully, cautiously on the proper side of the road
by observing traffic rules and regulations by sounding horn.
The accident took place on account of carelessness on the
9 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
part of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-51-EB-9431 who came
in all of a sudden on the main road, without any indication.
The respondent contended that, the compensation claimed in
all the petitions is exorbitant, baseless. Hence, on all these
grounds, the respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the petitions
with costs.
10. The respondent No.3 denied age, income and
occupation of the petitioner and deceased. The respondent
denied the manner of the accident, expenses incurred for the
treatment and funeral of the deceased. The respondent also
denied that, he is the RC owner of the motor cycle bearing
No.KA-42-R-6415 and at the time of accident, the first
respondent who was deleted was the RC owner of the above
said vehicle which was insured with second respondent
having validity from 14-02-2014 to 13-02-2015. Hence, it is
the second respondent who is liable to pay compensation.
Hence, on all these grounds, the respondent No.3 prayed to
dismiss the petitions with costs.
11. On the basis of the above said pleadings and
propositions of law, following issues have been framed in all
the petitions:
10 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
ISSUES IN MVC No.420/2016
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the
deceased Siddaraju S/o Late Siddachari
met with a motor vehicle accident on 19-
08-2014 at about 9.30 p.m., near
Shivanahalli Junction road, Kasaba
Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara
and died due to the rash and negligent
riding of the rider of the motor cycle
bearing registration No.KA-42-R-6415?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they
are entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.421/2016
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the
deceased Mahalinga S/o Siddalingaiah @
Siddalingappa met with a motor vehicle
accident on 19-08-2014 at about 9.30
p.m., near Shivanahalli Junction road,
Kasaba Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara and died due to the rash and
negligent riding of the rider of the motor
cycle bearing registration No.KA-42-R-
6415?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they
are entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.422/2016
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
met with a motor vehicle accident on 19-
08-2014 at about 9.30 p.m., near
Shivanahalli Junction road, Kasaba
Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara
11 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
and sustained grievous injury due to the
rash and negligent riding of the rider of
the motor cycle bearing registration
No.KA-42-R-6415?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that he is
entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
12. The petitioners were examined as PW1 to PW3 and
got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. The complainant
was examined as PW4 and got marked documents at Ex.P18
and Ex.P19. Per contra, the official of the respondent No.2
company examined as RW1 and got marked authorization
letter as per Ex.R1.
13. I have heard the arguments and perused the
materials on record.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied
upon the following rulings:
1. 2015 AIR SCW 514 between Yerramma and
others Vs. G. Krishnamurthy and another.
2. 2013 ACJ 1403 between Rajesh and others
Vs. Rajbir Singh and others.
3. 2013 ACJ 2733 between Sanobanu
Nazirbhai Mirza and others Vs. Ahmedabad
Municipal Transport Service.
12 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
4. MFA No.102530/2015 between K. Imrana
and others Vs. Balasaheb Kashinath and
others.
5. MFA No.101019/2015 between
Jayalakshmi @ Jayavva and others Vs.
Anand and others.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has
relied upon the following rulings:
1. 2010 ACJ 656 between T. Subramaniam
and others Vs. Banwari GFurjar and others.
2. 2010 ACJ 438 between Divisional
Controller, Chief Custodian of Internal
Insurance Fund Vs. K.C. Roopa and others.
16. By considering the evidence on record and because
of my below discussed reasons, I answer the above issues in
the following:
ISSUES IN MVC No.420/2016
Issue No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
Issue No.2: PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
Issue No.3: AS PER FINAL ORDER.
ISSUES IN MVC No.421/2016
Issue No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
Issue No.2: PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
Issue No.3: AS PER FINAL ORDER.
13 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
ISSUES IN MVC No.422/2016
Issue No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
Issue No.2: PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
Issue No.3: AS PER FINAL ORDER.
REASONS
ISSUE NO.1 IN ALL THE PETITIONS:
17. From looking to the objections of the respondents
and materials on record, it appears that, there is no dispute
as to the involvement of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-51-
EB-9431, KA-42-R-6415 and KA-42-R-3816 in the alleged
accident. There is no dispute as to the death of Sri Siddaraju
and Sri Mahalinga and also the injuries sustained by the
petitioner in MVC 422/2016. What is seriously disputed by
the respondent No.2, is the negligence attributed to the rider
of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415.
18. The petitioners have reiterated the petition
averments in their affidavits filed by way of examination-in-
chief as PW1 to PW3. They have deposed regarding the
manner of accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner in
MVC 422/2016, death of Siddaraju and Mahalinga in the
accident, expenses incurred for treatment of the petitioner in
14 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
MVC 422/2016, towards funeral of above said both deceased.
They have deposed regarding the income, occupation of both
deceased and petitioner in MVC 422/2016. They have
deposed regarding the registration of the criminal case
against the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415
by the jurisdictional police.
19. The petitioner in MVC 422/2016 was examined as
PW1. Apart from the above said oral evidence, he got marked
FIR at Ex.P1, complaint at Ex.P2, spot panchanama at Ex.P3,
spot sketch at Ex.P4, IMV report at Ex.P5, wound certificate
at Ex.P6, charge sheet at Ex.P7, medical bills at Ex.P8. The
petitioners in MVC 420/2016 and 421/2016 got marked the
inquest report at Ex.P9, postmortem report at Ex.P10,
notarized copy of election ID cards at Ex.P11, inquest report
at Ex.P12, postmortem report at Ex.P13, notarized copy of
birth certificates at Ex.P14, notarized copy of ration card at
Ex.P15, notarized copy of Aadhaar card and election ID card
of the deceased at Ex.P16 and Ex.P17. Through PW4 his
Aadhaar card and election ID card were marked at Ex.P18
and Ex.P19.
15 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
20. The PW1 in his cross examination stated that, at the
time of accident, he was proceeding along with the deceased
in MVC 420/2016 from Bangalore to Malavalli at about 9.30
p.m. He admitted that, 3 motor cycles were involved in the
accident. He stated that, they were proceeding from
Kanakapura towards Malavalli and accident took place on the
left side of the road. He admits as to the correctness of the
sketch marked at Ex.P4. He stated that, the TVS Star City
touched to their motor cycle. It was suggested to PW1 that,
the rider of their motor cycle was riding the motor cycle at a
speed of 80 kms which is denied. The PW1 admitted that,
after the accident, the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415
colluded with motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-3816. He
stated that, the above said motor cycles were proceeding in
the same direction at the time of accident. He stated that, the
eye witness has lodged the complaint and he took first aid
treatment at Kanakapura Government Hospital.
21. The PW2 has stated that, the motor cycle belongs to
deceased Mahalinga, who had driving licence and it was lost
at the time of accident. The PW2 stated that, the deceased
was only proceeding on his motor cycle at the time of accident
16 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
and admitted that, three motor cycles were involved in the
accident. The PW3 stated that, the petitioner in MVC
422/2016 was a pillion rider and the above said motor cycle
was standing in the name of the deceased, who had driving
licnece and it was lost at the time of accident. It is suggested
to PW3 that, the accident was due to negligence of the
deceased which is denied.
22. The PW4 has deposed that, on 19-08-2014 at about
9.30 p.m., he was proceeding on his motor cycle from
Kalegowdanadoddi towards Kanakapura side, at that time,
the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 and KA-
42-R-3816 were proceeding at a distance of 50 to 60 feet. He
stated that, when they reached near Shivanahalli Junction
road, BWSSB Circle, Sathnoor-Kanakapura road, at that
time, the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415
without observing the traffic rules and regulations suddenly
took his motor cycle to the extreme right side towards BWSSB
pipe line road, as a result the rider of the motor cycle bearing
No.KA-51-EB-9431, who was coming from Kanakapura
towards Sathnoor met with the above said motor cycle and
accident was caused due to the rash and negligent riding of
17 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415. He
further stated that, the said rider has also hit to the motor
cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-3816. Due to the impact of the said
accident, Mahalinga and Siddaraju died and petitioner in
MVC 422/2016 sustained injuries. The PW4 in his cross
examination stated that, the accident took place where cross
road joins and there were no street lights at the spot of
accident. Further he stated that, the deceased Mahalinga and
Praveen left their office at 9.15 p.m., 10 minutes earlier to
him and he followed them in order to reach Ramanagar. The
PW4 admits as to the contents of the Ex.P1 as correct and
stated that, the accident took place, when the rider of the
motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 Praveen took his
vehicle to the right side and after collusion fell on the motor
cycle of Mahalinga bearing No.KA-42-R-3816. The PW4 stated
that, the offending vehicle as well as the above said two motor
cycles were at equal speed. The PW4 stated that, the accident
could have been avoided, if all the three vehicles slowed down
their speed.
23. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 with
the above said evidence of PW4 submitted that, the riders of
18 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
all the above said three motor cycles are equally responsible
for the alleged accident and PW4, the eye witness has stated
that, if the riders of the above said three motor cycles have
been slowed down their vehicles, the accident could have
been avoided.
24. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that, as per the sketch, the accident took place on
the right side of the road which shows that, the deceased in
MVC 420/2016 and petitioner in MVC 422/2016 were
proceeding on proper side of the road and merely on the stray
admission of PW4, it cannot be come to the conclusion that,
the riders of the above said three motor cycles are equally
responsible for the alleged accident. He further argued that,
the charge sheet was filed by the jurisdictional police against
the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 is alone
responsible for the accident.
25. Though, the official of the respondent No.2 company
was examined as RW1, but he is not an eye witness to the
accident. He has deposed regarding the evidence of PW4 in
his examination in chief which is not tenable in the eyes of
law. Hence, whatever evidence was led by the RW1 had no
19 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
value in the eyes of law. But RW1 was admitted that, the
charge sheet was filed against the rider of the motor cycle
bearing No.KA-42-R-6415. He admits that, as per the sketch,
the accident took place on the right side of the road.
26. The complaint marked at Ex.P2 was lodged by PW4
stating that, on 19-08-2014 he was proceeding from
Bangalore towards Ramanagara after completing his work at
Laguna Garments, at that time, the rider of the motor cycle
bearing No.KA-42-R-3816 and KA-42-R-6415, who were also
working in the Laguna Garments were proceeding from
Shivanahalli towards Kalegowdanadoddi and when they
reached near pipe line road junction, the rider of the motor
cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 without any indication took
his motor cycle to the extreme right side towards BWSSB pipe
line road, at that time, the motor cycle bearing No.KA-51-EB-
9431 coming from opposite direction met with the accident,
because of which, the rider of the said motor cycle and the
rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-3816 died in the
accident and pillion rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA-51-
EB-9431 sustained injuries in the accident. On the basis of
the said complaint, FIR at Ex.P1 came to be lodged by the
20 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
Kanakapura Rural Police in their Crime No.191/2014 against
the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 for the
offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304(A) of
IPC. During the investigation, the jurisdictional police have
conducted the spot panchanama and spot sketch as per
Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 which reveals that, the accident took place
on the above said road. The sketch reveals that, the accident
took place on the left side of the Kanakapura -
Kalegowdanadoddi road. The motor vehicles accident report
marked at Ex.P5 reveals that, the above said all three motor
cycles sustained damages in the accident. The jurisdictional
police after thorough investigation have filed a charge sheet
as per Ex.P7 against the rider of the motor cycle bearing
No.KA-42-R-6415 for the offences punishable under Section
279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.
27. I have carefully perused all the materials and taken
into consideration the submissions made by both the counsel
as stated supra. In this case, the sketch is a vital document
which reveals that, at the time of accident, the rider of the
motor cycle bearing No.KA-51-EB-9431 was proceeding from
Kanakapura towards Kalegowdanadoddi, at that time, the
21 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 and KA-42-
R-3816 were coming in a opposite direction from
Kalegowdanadoddi towards Kanakapura, Shivanahalli. The
respondents have not disputed as to the correctness of the
sketch Ex.P4. As per the said sketch, the accident took place
on the left side of the road which clearly reveals that, the rider
of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-51-EB-9431 was proceeding
on the left side of the road by observing traffic rules and
regulations. The complaint reveals that, the rider of the motor
cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 took his motor cycle to the
extreme right side without any indications and the accident
took place. Though, PW4 stated that, if the riders of the above
said all motor cycles slowed down their vehicles, the accident
could have been avoided. But speed is not only the criteria in
order to assess rashness and negligence. In this case, the
rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 took his
motor cycle to the extreme right side without any indications,
because of which the accident took place. He ought to have
waited for vehicles coming from opposite direction and only
on the confirmation no vehicles were coming from the
opposite direction, he ought to have made an attempt to join
22 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
BWSSB road. But in this case, the said rider without waiting
for the vehicles coming from the opposite direction hurriedly
tried to join BWSSB road and was sole responsible for the
alleged accident. The jurisdictional police after thorough
investigation have filed a charge sheet against the said rider
for the alleged accident. Though, PW1 to PW3 were cross
examined at length, but nothing worthwhile has been elicited
from their mouth to falsify their case. The spot panchanama
reveals that, the accident took place on the left side of the
Kanakapura - Shivanahalli road which clearly reveals that,
the deceased in MVC 420/2016 and petitioner in MVC
422/2016 were proceeding on the proper side of the road and
it was the duty of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-
42-R-6415 who ought to have waited for the vehicles coming
from opposite direction and then proceed to join BWSSB road.
But in this case, he without waiting for the vehicles coming
from opposite direction hurriedly tried to join the BWSSB
road and was sole responsible for the alleged accident.
28. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 relied
upon the ruling reported in 2010 ACJ 656, wherein the
Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that, in the
23 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
absence of any evidence of the driver of the bus, negligence
cannot be attributed to the motor cyclist. This ruling is not
helpful to the case of respondent No.2 in any way. In the
second ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held
that, the driver of the car and bus are responsible to the
extent of 30% and 70% for the alleged accident. I have
carefully perused the entire facts of the case, but in this case,
the accident took place when the rider of the motor cycle
bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 took his motor cycle immediately to
the right side without any indications. Hence, the said ruling
is not applicable to the case on hand.
29. The jurisdictional police have filed charge sheet
against the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415
as per Ex.P7 which is unchallenged. Though, the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that, the riders of the
above said three vehicles are equally responsible for the
alleged accident, but having regard to the sketch and spot
panchanama, it is quite clear that, if the rider of the motor
cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 had waited before joining
Kanakapura - BWSSB road, the accident could have been
24 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
avoided. There is no fault on behalf of the deceased in MVC
420/2016 and petitioner in MVC 422/2016, as they were
proceeding on the proper side of the road. Hence, it can be
safely come to the conclusion that, the rider of the motor
cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 is sole responsible for the
alleged accident. Accordingly I answer the issue No.1 in all
the petitions in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC 420/2016:
30. This issue is in respect of quantum of compensation
to be awarded to the petitioners and the liability to pay the
same.
31. The inquest report of the deceased marked at
Ex.P12 reveals that, in the accident the deceased had
sustained injuries on right arm, fracture of bone. The
postmortem report Ex.P13 reveals that, the cause of death is
due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury and
associated fracture sustained. Ex.P14 are the birth certificate
of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in MVC 420/2016 which reveals
that, they were born on 21-03-2012. Ex.P15 ration card
reveals that, the petitioner No.4 was the mother of the
deceased Siddaraju and petitioner No.1 was the wife of the
25 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
deceased Siddaraju. The notarized copy of Aadhaar card of
the first petitioner Marked at Ex.P16 reveals that, she is the
wife of the deceased Siddaraju. Notarized copy of election ID
card of the deceased marked at Ex.P17 reveals that, he was
born in the year 1989. The respondents have not seriously
disputed the age of the deceased. As per the postmortem
report, the deceased at the time of accident was aged about
28 years. The election ID card does not reveal the exact date
of birth of the deceased. Hence, the court has to rely upon
postmortem report to come to the conclusion that, the
deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident.
32. In the first ruling relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, the Hon'ble High Court held that, the
interest at the rate of 9% per annum has to be awarded on
the compensation amount. There is no dispute as to the said
position of law. Further, in the said ruling, it was held that,
the driver of the bus was sole responsible, as he took his
vehicle without giving right turn indicator and contributory
negligence cannot be attributed to the motor cyclist. This
Tribunal while discussing the issue No.1 has held that, the
rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-6415 was sole
26 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
responsible for the alleged accident. Applying the said
position of law, in this case also, the said rider without giving
right turn indicator has took his motor cycle and the accident
took place.
33. In second ruling relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, the Hon'ble High Court held that persons
below 40 years are entitled for 50% of future prospectus.
Persons in between age group of 40 to 50 years are entitled
for 30% of future prospectus and persons in between age
group of 50 to 60 years are entitled for 15% of future
prospectus. Further in third ruling relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was
awarded towards loss of consortium and loss of care and
guidance to the minor children. In unreported ruling relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble
High Court took into consideration the future prospects and
awarded the compensation. Relying upon the said ruling, in
this case the deceased was aged about 28 years. There is no
document as to the income and avocation of the deceased.
Having regard to the fact that, the accident took place in the
year 2014 and considering the age of the deceased, it is just
27 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
and reasonable to take his notional income at Rs.8,000/- per
month.
34. In this case, the deceased was aged about 28 years
as on the date of accident. Hence, as per the above said
rulings, 50% of actual income is to be taken into account as
future prospectus. The petitioners are wife, two minor
children and mother of the deceased. Hence, 1/4th has to be
deducted towards his personal expenses. Hence, the following
calculations:
(i) Notional income arrived at ...Rs.8000/-p.m.
(ii)50% of (i) above said income
to be added as future prospectus ...Rs.4000+8000/-=
...Rs.12,000/-p.m.
Less 1/4 deducted as personal
expenses of the deceased. ...Rs. 12000-3,000-=
... Rs.9,000x12x17=
Compensation after multiplier of 17
is applied ... Rs.18,36,000/-
The petitioners are entitled for the compensation of
Rs.18,36,000/-under the head loss of dependency.
35. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ
5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad Municipal
Transport Service) and also in the recent judgment reported
in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706 (Puttamma Vs. Narayana
28 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family
members (children and family members other than wife) for
loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social
security etc., and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widow
of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and
sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection, social
security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on
account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case, the
petitioner No.1 has lost company of the deceased. Hence, a
sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head loss of
consortium. If the deceased had been alive, he had
contributed his savings to the petitioners maintenance, due to
the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners have lost
the estate of the deceased. Hence, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is
awarded under head loss of estate. The petitioners have lost
the love and affection of the deceased. Hence, a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under head loss of love and
affection. There are no documents to show that, the actual
expenses incurred for funeral and other ceremonies. Hence, a
sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under head funeral expenses.
29 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
36. The details of compensation I propose to award are
as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
1. Loss of dependency 18,36,000-00
2. Loss of consortium 50,000-00
3. Loss of estate 50,000-00
4. Loss of love and affection 1,00,000-00
5. Funeral Expenses 25,000-00
Total 20,61,000-00
In all the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of
Rs.20,61,000/-.
ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC 421/2016:
37. The inquest report marked at Ex.P9, postmortem
report at Ex.P10 reveals that, the deceased in MVC 421/2016
had sustained injuries over right hand, front parietal region
and bone fracture. The cause of death is due to shock and
haemorhage as a result of head injury and associated fracture
sustained. The election ID card of the deceased shows that,
he was born in the year 1994. Ex.P11 election ID card of both
the petitioners reveals that, they are the legal heirs of the
deceased. In the absence of any document as to the exact
date of birth of the deceased, the age mentioned in the
30 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
postmortem report is taken into account. It is suggested to
PW2 that, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged
about 28 years which is denied. The postmortem report
reveals that, the deceased was aged about 22 years at the
time of accident. Moreover as per election ID card of the
deceased his year of birth of 1994. If we take the said date,
the deceased might have aged in between 20 to 22 years.
Hence, the age mentioned in postmortem report is taken into
account. The petitioners have not produced any document to
show the exact income and avocation of the deceased. Taking
into account, the age of the deceased and year in which the
accident took place, his notional income is taken at
Rs.8,000/- per month. The petitioners are the parents of the
deceased. It appears that, the deceased was bachelor at the
time of accident.
38. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the ruling reported in
2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and others vs Rajbir Singh and
others) held that the future prospects should be adopted even
when the person is self employed or were engaged on fixed
wages. In para-11 and 12 of said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex
court discussed the principles laid down in the Sarla Verma's
31 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298(SC) and another ruling
reported in 2012 ACJ 1428(SC) in Santhosh Devi's case held
that even when the person is self-employed or at fixed wages,
the future prospectus is to be considered. The Apex court has
held that 50% of the actual income of the deceased have to be
taken for the future prospectus below 40years and 30% for
the age group of 40-50years and 15% for the age group of 50-
60years is to be added as future prospectus.
39. Further, in another rulings of Apex court reported in
Civil Appeal No.4497/2015 between Munnalal Jain and
another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others) held that the
age of the deceased should taken into account for applying
the proper multiplier.
40. In this case, the deceased was aged about 22 years
as on the date of accident. The deceased was a bachelor at
the time of accident. Hence, as per the above said rulings,
50% of actual income is to be taken into account as future
prospectus. As per the petition, the parents of the deceased
are shown as dependents. Hence, 50% has to be deducted
towards his personal expenses. Hence, the following
calculations:
32 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
(i) Notional income arrived at ...Rs.8,000/-p.m.
(ii)50% of (i) above said income
to be added as future prospectus ...Rs.4,000+8,000/-=
...Rs.12,000/-p.m.
Less 50% deducted as personal
expenses of the deceased. ...Rs.12,000-6,000/-=
...Rs.6,000 x 12 x 18=
Compensation after multiplier of 18
is applied ... Rs.12,96,000/-
The petitioners are entitled for the compensation of
Rs.12,96,000/-under the head loss of dependency.
41. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ
5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad Municipal
Transport Service) and also in the recent judgment reported
in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706 (Puttamma Vs. Narayana
Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family
members (children and family members other than wife) for
loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social
security etc., and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widow
of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and
sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection, social
security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on
account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case, since
33 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
the deceased has left behind his old age parents, I deem it
proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family
members (children and family members other than wife) for
loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social
security etc. Loss of expectancy of life and estate
Rs.1,00,000/-. Loss of marriage prospectus of Rs.50,000/-
and Rs.25,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral
and ritual expenses.
42. The details of compensation I propose to award are
as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 12,96,000-00
2. Compensation to the family 1,00,000-00
members (children and
family members other than
wife) for loss of love and
affection, deprivation of
protection, social security
etc.
3. Loss expectancy of life & 1,00,000-00
estate
4. Loss of marriage prospectus 50,000-00
5. Cost incurred on account of 25,000-00
funeral and ritual expenses
Total 15,71,000-00
In all the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of
Rs.15,71,000/-.
34 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC 422/2016:
43. The wound certificate of petitioner in MVC
422/2016 marked at Ex.P6 reveals that, he has sustained
contusion and abrasions on occipital scalp measuring 2x3
cm., laceration on right 5th toe measuring 1x ½ x ½ cm. In
the opinion of the doctor, the injury No.1 is grievous in nature
and other injuries are simple in nature. He has not examined
the doctor. The medical bills marked at Ex.P8 reveals that,
the petitioner has took treatment for the said injuries. He has
not produced the discharge summary. The medical bills as
per the petitioner are worth of Rs.2,153/-. But the medical
bills at serial No.2 and 4 does not bear the name of the
petitioner. Hence, they are not taken into account. The bill at
serial No.7 was for Rs.206/-. Hence, the petitioner is entitled
for a sum of Rs.1,906/- under the head medical expenses.
The petitioner has not produced any document to show his
income and avocation. Due to the accidental injuries, he
might have to incur sum amount for his conveyance,
attendant charges and nutritious food. He has to undergo
pain and sufferings and loose his income during laid up
35 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
period. He cannot enjoy life as prior to the date of accident
and he has to loose amenities and all happiness in the life.
Hence, considering all these aspects a global compensation of
Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the petitioner which includes the
medical expenses.
Interest:
44. Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court
reported in 2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout and others Vs.
Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others), with regard to
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount,
in para 13 of the judgment, the Apex Court held that
Insurance Company is also liable to pay interest at the rate of
9% p.a. from the date of application till the date of payment
and also by following the principles laid down in (2011) 4
SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs.
Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy). In view of the
above judgments with regard to the rate of interest, and also
it is settled law that while awarding interest on the
compensation amount, the Court has to take into account the
rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the rate of
36 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
interest at 9% cannot said to be on the higher side.
Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate
of 9% p.a.
Liability:
45. The respondent No.2 though taken up a contention
that, at the time of accident, the rider of the offending vehicle
did not possessed valid and effective driving licence, but there
is no evidence to that effect. He has not produced any
document to show that, it had not issued policy in respect of
the offending vehicle. The RW1 in his cross examination
admitted that, the charge sheet was filed against the insured
vehicle which reveals that, the vehicle was covered under the
policy at the time of accident. Hence, both respondents are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to petitioners
with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petitions till its
realization. However, primary liability is fixed on respondent
No.2 who is the insurer of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-
R-6415. Accordingly, issue No.2 in all the petitions is
answered partly in the affirmative.
37 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
ISSUE No.3 IN ALL THE PETITIONS:
46. In view of my above findings, all the petitions are
deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The petitions filed by the petitioners in MVC Nos.420/2016 to 422/2016 U/s.166 of MV Act are partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners in MVC No.420/2016 is awarded with the compensation of Rs.20,61,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs sixty one thousand only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
The petitioners in MVC No.421/2016 is awarded with the compensation of Rs.15,71,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs seventy one thousand only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
The petitioner in MVC No.422/2016 is awarded with the compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
38 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016 to 422/2016 The respondents Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 -Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within three months from the date of this order.
Compensation amount is apportioned in MVC 420/2016 as follows:-
Petitioner No.1- Wife - 25%
Petitioner No.2 - Son - 25%
Petitioner No.3 - Son - 25%
Petitioner No.4 - Mother - 25%
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 and 4 in MVC 420/2016, 50% is ordered to be invested in the name of petitioner Nos.1 and 4 in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with entire interest is ordered to be released to them, through A/c payee cheques on proper identification and verification.
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in MVC 420/2016 being 39 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016 to 422/2016 the minors, entire compensation amount shall be deposited in the name of the minor petitioners as FD in any nationalized bank of the choice of 1st petitioner till they attains majority.
Compensation amount is apportioned in MVC 421/2016 as follows:-
Petitioner No.1- Father - 50%
Petitioner No.2- Mother - 50%
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in MVC 421/2016, 50% is ordered to be invested in the name of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with entire interest is ordered to be released to them, through A/c payee cheques on proper identification and verification.
Out of the said compensation amount awarded in MVC 422/2016, entire amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the petitioner through A/c payee cheque on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-in each petition. 40 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016 to 422/2016 Office to keep the original judgment in the file of MVC No.422/2016 and copy of the same in the file of MVC No.420/2016 and 421/2016.
Draw award accordingly in all the petitions. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this the 05th day of November 2016) (SATISH.J.BALI) MEMBER:MACT, BANGALORE ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of Petitioners:
PW1 Sri Siddappaji @ Siddu B. PW2 Sri Siddalingaiah @ Siddalingappa PW3 Smt. Prabhavathi PW4 Sri Rudraswamy
List of the documents exhibited on behalf of Petitioners:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P3 True copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P4 True copy of Spot Sketch
Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P6 True copy of Wound certificate
41 (SCCH-16) MVC 420/2016
to 422/2016
Ex.P7 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P8 7 Medical bills of Rs.2,153/-
Ex.P9 True copy of Inquest mahazar
Ex.P10 True copy of Postmortem report
Ex.P11 Notarized attested true copy of Voter ID (3 in
nos.)
Ex.P12 True copy of Inquest mahazar
Ex.P13 True copy of Postmortem report
Ex.P14 Notarized attested true copy of Birth
certificates (2 in nos.)
Ex.P15 Notarized attested true copy of Ration card
Ex.P16 Notarized attested true copy of Aadhaar card
Ex.P17 Notarized attested true copy of Election ID card
of the deceased
Ex.P18 Notarized attested true copy of Aadhaar card
Ex.P19 Notarized attested true copy of Identity card
issued by Laguna Clothing Pvt. Ltd., List of the witnesses examined on behalf of Respondents:
RW1 Sri K.S. Raveendra List of the documents marked on behalf of Respondents:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
(SATISH.J.BALI),
MEMBER, MACT BANGALORE.