Bangalore District Court
Smt.Padma W/O S. Chandrappa 36 Years vs Taufiq Ahmed on 9 February, 2017
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
AT BENGALURU
(SCCH:15)
MVC No.3333, 3334, 3335, 3336, 3721 & 3722/2015
THIS THE 9th DAY OF FEBRAURY, 2017
Present: Rajanna Sankannanavar,
B.A., LL.B.,(Spl.)
XIII Addl.Small Cause Judge
& Member MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.3333/2015
Petitioners: 1. Smt.Padma W/o S. Chandrappa 36 years,
2. Sri.S.Chandrappa S/o Subbaiah 40 years,
Both are R/o. Vinayakanagar,
Gowribidanur, Chikkaballapur District.
MVC No.3334/2015
Petitioners:1. Smt.Parvathamma W/o Nanjundappa,
36 yrs.,
2. Sri.Nanjundappa S/o Somaiah 42 yrs.
Both are R/o. Hirebidanur,
Gowribidanur Town, Chikkaballapur Dist.
MVC No.3335/2015
Petitioners: 1. Smt.Padma W/o S. Chandrappa 36 years,
2. Sri.S.Chandrappa S/o Subbaiah 40 years,
Both are R/o. Vinayakanagar,
Gowribidanur, Chikkaballapur District.
MVC No.3336/2015
Petitioner: 1.Smt.Gangamma W/o Rambabu K.
24 yrs,
2.Kum.R.Megha D/o Rambabu K.14 yrs,
3.Chi.R.Rakesh S/o Rambabu K 11 yrs.,
4.Smt.Marakka W/o G.S.Krishnappa,50 yrs.,
2 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
5. Sri.G.S.Krishnappa, 60 yrs.,
Since the petitioners No.2 & 3 are minors,
Represented by their mother & natural
Guardian Smt.Gangamma i.e., 1st petitioner.
All the petitioners are R/o. Near Bus stop,
Gangasandra Gowribidanur Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District.
MVC No.3721/2015
Petitioners: Sri.Nanjundappa S/o Somaiah, 42 yrs.
R/o. Hirebidanur, Gowribidanur Town,
Chikkaballapur District.
MVC No.3722/2015
Petitioner: 1.Smt.M.A.Hemavathi W/o Late
S.E.Hanumantharayappa, 28 yrs.,
2. Master Ganbhir S/o Late
S.E.Hanumantharayappa, 5 yrs,
3. Kum.Sanjana D/o Late
S.E.Hanumantharayappa, 3 yrs.,
4. Sri.Henjerappa S/o Late
Hanumantharayappa, 70 yrs.,
5. Smt.Saraswathamma W/o. Henjerappa,
63 yrs, All are R/o. Saganahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Gowribidanur Town,
Chikkaballapur District.
V/s
Respondent/s:1.Sri.Syed Taufiq Ahmed, S/o Sri.Syed
Mahaboob, Major R/o. No.827,
Gopal Reddy Building, Main Road,
Sail Stock Yard, Ramamurthy Nagar,
Bengaluru -560016.
3 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
2. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Regional Office,Unity Building Annexe,
Mission Road, Bengaluru-560 027.
(Policy No.67050531140200007213 valid
From 20.10.2014 to 19.10.2015)
(Sri.Venkataswamy.A Adv. For Petitioner)
(Sri.T.H.Narayana Adv. for Respondent No.1)
(Sri.S.Kavitha Adv. for Respondent No.2)
COMMON-JUDGMENT
The Petitioners of MVC.No.3333/2015 have filed the
present petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against
the respondents together for relief of compensation sum of
Rs.25,00,000/- and with interest, in view of death of C.Naveen
S/o. S.Chandrappa in a road traffic accident And
1(a). The Petitioners of MVC.No.3334/2015 have filed the
present petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against
the respondents together for relief of compensation sum of
Rs.25,00,000/- and with interest, in view of death of
Nanjundappa S/o. Sri.Nanjundappa in a road traffic accident
And.
4 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
1(b) The Petitioners of MVC.No.3335/2015 have filed the
present petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against
the respondents together for relief of compensation sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- and with interest, in view of death of Kum.
C.Ashwini, D/o Chandrappa in a road traffic accident And.
1(c) A Petitioner of MVC.No.3336/2015 has filed the
present petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against
the respondents together for relief of compensation sum of
Rs.60,00,000/- and with interest, in view of death of Rambabu
S/o G.S.Krishnappa in a road traffic accident And.
1(d) The Petitioner Sri.Nanjundappa, S/o Late Somaiah of
MVC.No.3721/2015 has filed the present petition under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents
together for relief of compensation sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and
with interest, in view of injury sustained by the petitioner in a
road traffic accident And.
1(e) The Petitioners of MVC.No.3722/2015 have filed the
present petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against
the respondents together for relief of compensation sum of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- and with interest, in view of death of Sri.
5 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
S.E.Hanumantharayappa S/o.Hanumantharayappa in a road
traffic accident.
2. Whereas the present Six petitions are filed by the
respective petitioner/s under out of arising one Crime of
Doddaballapur Police station under Crime No.23/2015.
Therefore, this Tribunal has passed a common judgment all
together.
The facts of the petitions are as follows:
3. That on 15.01.2015 at about 11.30 p.m. C.Naveen,
N.Jagadish, Ashwini, Rambabu, Nanjundappa who is petitioner
in MVC No. 3721/2015 and S.E.Hanumantharayappa were
traveling in Tata Indica car bearing Regn.No.KA-05/MB-3946
from Doddaballapur towards Gowribidanur when they reached
near Palanajogihalli Drainage, at that time, a lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-53/A-9156 came in opposite direction in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the Tata Indica Car, due
to impact the C.Naveen, N.Jagadeesh, Ashwini, Rambabu and
S.E.Hanumantharayappa were died on the spot, Nanjundappa
S/o Late Somaiah was sustained injuries, in this regard
6 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
Doddaballapur Police have registered a case under
Cr.No.23/2015.
3(a). So far MVC No.3333/2015 is concerned The
deceased C.Naveen S/o Chandrappa was aged about 15 years
at the time of accident and was a student, the petitioners have
spent about Rs.25,000/- towards transportation of dead body
and funeral obsequies. The Petitioner No.1 is the mother and
petitioner No.2 is the father of deceased.
3(b) So far MVC No.3334/2015 is concerned, the deceased
Master N.Jagadeesh S/o. Nanjundappa was aged about 13
years at the time of accident and was a student, the petitioners
have spent huge amount of Rs.25,000/- transportation of dead
body and Rs.1,00,000/- for funeral obsequies. The Petitioner
No.1 is the mother and petitioner No.2 is the father of deceased.
3(c). So far MVC No.3335/2015 is concerned, the
deceased Kum.Ashwini D/o. Chandrappa was aged about 11
years at the time of accident and she was student. The
petitioners have spent Rs.25,000/- towards transportation of
dead body and Rs.1,00,000/- towards funeral and obsequies.
The Petitioner No.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased.
7 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
3(d). So far MVC No.3336/2015 is concerned, the
deceased Sri.Rambabu S/o Sri G.S.Krishnappa was aged about
38 years at the time of accident and working as driver-cum-
conductor in BMTC bus and he was earning a sum of
Rs.18,404/- p.m. the petitioners have spent Rs.25,000/-
towards transportation of dead body and Rs.1,00,000/-
towards funeral obsequies. The Petitioner No.1 is the wife of
deceased, petitioner No.2 and 3 are the minor children of
deceased, petitioner No.4 and 5 are the parents of deceased.
Petitioners were depending upon the earning of deceased
person and deceased was the only earning member of family,
further the petitioners have fully dependent on the income of
deceased.
3(e). So far MVC No.3721/2015 is concerned, before
accident the petitioner was hale and healthy and his age was of
45 years and he was doing hotel business and earning
Rs.15,000/-p.m. Due to accidental injuries, he is suffering lot of
pain and mental shock and he may not able to continue his
work as earlier and spent about Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical
expenses.
8 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
3(f). So far MVC No.3722/2015 is concerned, the deceased
S.E.Hanumantharayappa S/o Hanumantharayappa was aged
about 33 years at the time of accident and working as BMTC
Driver-cum-Conductor and he was earning a sum of
Rs.23,903.72 p.m. The petitioners have spent Rs.25,000/-
towards transportation of dead body and Rs.1,00,000/-
towards funeral obsequies. The Petitioner No.1 is the wife of
deceased, petitioner No.2 and 3 are the minor children of
deceased, petitioner No.4 and 5 are the parents of deceased.
Petitioners were depending upon the earning of deceased
person and deceased was the only earning member of family,
further the petitioners have fully dependent on the income of
deceased. Thus, 1st Respondent is the owner of the lorry
bearing No. KA-53/A-9156 and 2nd respondent is the insurer of
said vehicle. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, petitioners of
all petitions have prayed for allow the petition.
4. After issuance of notice to the respondents of MVC.3333
to 3336/2015 and 3721 & 3722/2015 and same is served on
them, Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 and 2 have appeared
9 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
through their respective Advocate and filed the objections to the
main petition in separately. The facts of the written statement
are as follows:
5. In the objection of 1st respondent, he has admits, he is
the owner of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-53/A-9156 and further
admits that said lorry was insured at the time of accident under
the respondent No.2 company and denied remaining averments
which were mentioned in the petition and contended that the
due to the rash and negligent driven by the driver of Tata Indica
car the alleged accident was occurred. Further contended that
there is a contributory negligence on the part of the Car, further
contended that said lorry was insured with the 2nd respondent
and the policy was valid at the time of accident, if, respondent
No.2 held liable to pay any extent the liability of award will
have to be borne by respondent No.1. Thus, 1st respondent
prays to dismiss the petition against him.
5(a). In the Objection of 2nd respondent, he has admits that
1st respondent is the owner of lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-53/A-
9156 and further admits that 2nd respondent is the insurer of
10 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
said vehicle and denied remaining all averments made in the
petition and contended that the driver of lorry has not holding
valid and effective D.L. at the time of accident and also validity
of R.C., F.C., and Permit of the above vehicle, further contended
that the accident was not due to negligence on the part of the
driver of lorry and further contended that said lorry was not
involved in the accident and further contended that there is
delay for lodging the complaint. Therefore Respondent No.2
prays to dismiss the petition.
6. On the pleadings of both the parties, my learned
predecessor was framed issues as follows:
ISSUES IN MVC NO.3333/2015
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the LRs of
the deceased?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Sri. C.
Naveen was died in RTA arising out of the accident
alleged to have been taken place on 15-01-2015 at
about 11-30 p.m., near Palanajogihalli Drainage,
Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry
bearing No.KA-53-A-9156?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?
If so, what amount & from whom?
4. What order or award?
11 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
ISSUES IN MVC NO.3334/2015
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the LRs of
the deceased?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Sri. N.
Jagadeesh was died in RTA arising out of the accident
alleged to have been taken place on 15-01-2015 at
about 11-30 p.m., near Palanajogihalli Drainage,
Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry
bearing No.KA-53-A-9156?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?
If so, what amount & from whom?
4. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC NO.3335/2015
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the LRs of
the deceased?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Kum. C.
Ashwini was died in RTA arising out of the accident
alleged to have been taken place on 15-01-2015 at
about 11-30 p.m., near Palanajogihalli Drainage,
Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry
bearing No.KA-53-A-9156?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?
If so, what amount & from whom?
4. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC NO.3336/2015
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the LRs of
the deceased?
12 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
2. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Sri.
Rambabu .K. was died in RTA arising out of the
accident alleged to have been taken place on 15-01-
2015 at about 11-30 p.m., near Palanajogihalli
Drainage, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural
District due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of Lorry bearing No.KA-53-A-9156?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?
If so, what amount & from whom?
4. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC NO.3721/2015
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained
injury due to RTA alleged to have been occurred on
15-01-2015 at about 11-30 p.m., near Palanajogihalli
Drainage, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural
District due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of Lorry bearing No.KA-53-A-9156?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, what amount & from whom?
3. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC NO.3722/2015
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the LRs of the
deceased?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Sri. S.E.
Hanumantharayappa was died in RTA arising out of the
accident alleged to have been taken place on 15-01-2015
at about 11-30 p.m., near Palanajogihalli Drainage,
Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing
No.KA-53-A-9156?
13 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If
so, what amount & from whom?
4. What order or award?
7. In order to proving the above said issues, 1st petitioner
in MVC.No.3333 herself has been examined as PW-1 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to 11, 1st petitioner in MVC.No.3334/2015 has
been examined as PW-2 and got marked Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.20, 1st
petitioner in MVC.3335/2015 has been examined as PW-3 and
got marked Exs.P.21 to 26, 1st petitioner in MVC.3336/2015 is
examined as PW-4 and got marked as Exs.P.27 to 40, petitioner
in MVC.3721/2015 has been examined as PW-5 and got
marked Exs.P.41 to 53, 1st petitioner in MVC.3722/2015 has
been examined as PW-6 and on behalf of petitioner an
eyewitness has been examined as PW-7 and the Dr.Ramesh
has been examined as P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P.54 to 56. On
the other hand respondent No.1 has been examined as R.W.1
and got marked Ex.R.1 to 6.
08. Heard arguments of both the sides on merits of the
case and perused the record.
09. Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above said
issues in MVC No.3333/2015 are answered in the;
14 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative
Rs.6,25,000/- from the
Resp.No.2
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following
09(a). Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above said
issues in MVC No.3334/2015 are answered in the;
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative
Rs.6,25,000/- from the
Resp.No.2
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following
09(b) Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above said
issues in MVC No.3335/2015 are answered in the;
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative
Rs.5,35,000/- from the
Resp.No.2
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following
09(c) Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above said
issues in MVC No.3336/2015 are answered in the;
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative
Rs.31,28,310/- from the
Resp.No.2
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following
09(d) Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above said
issues in MVC No.3721/2015 are answered in the;
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative
15 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
Rs.2,39,500/- from the
Resp.No.2
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following
09(e) Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above said
issues in MVC No.3722/2015 are answered in the;
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative
Rs.36,65,475/- from the
Resp.No.2
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following
REASONS
ISSUE No.2 of MVC.No.3333 to 3336/2015, 3722/2015
& ISSUE No.1 OF 3721/2015:
10. The Petitioners of MVC.No.3333/2015,
The Petitioners of MVC.No.3334/2015,
The Petitioners of MVC.No.3335/2015,
The Petitioners of MVC.No.3336/2015 and
The Petitioners of MVC.No.3722/2015 have filed
Separate petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against
the respondents together for relief of compensation in view of
death of viz., C.Naveen S/o. Chandrappa, N.Jagadeesh, Kum
Ashwini D/o. Chandrappa, Rambabu S/o G.S.Krishnappa
16 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
and S.E.Hanumantharayappa S/o Hanumantharayappa in a
road traffic accident.
11. Further the Petitioner of MVC.No.3721/2015 has filed
the present petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act
against the respondents together for relief of compensation sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- with interest, in view of injuries sustained by
Nanjundappa S/o Late Somaiah
12. The 1st Petitioner of MVC No.3333/2015 has been
examined as P.W.1, 1st petitioner of MVC No. 3334/2015 has been
examined as P.W.2, 1st petitioner of MVC No.3335/2015 has been
examined as P.W.3, 1st petitioner of MVC.No.3336/2015 has been
as PW-4, petitioner of MVC.3721/2015 has been examined as PW-
5 and 1st petitioner of MVc.3722/2015 has been examined as PW-
6 in lieu of examination-in-chief Affidavit respectively. In the
affidavit reiterated entire averments which were made in their
respective petition.
13. Firstly, there is no dispute about, 1st Respondent is
the owner of lorry bearing Regd. No.KA-53/A-9156 and 2nd
respondent is the insurer of said vehicle, further there is no
dispute regarding 1st respondent vehicle was insured under the
17 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
2nd respondent and same was in force at the time of accident,
however R.W.1 has produced copy of policy at Ex.R.4, by
perusing the same it is disclosed that the offending vehicle was
insured under the 2nd respondent at the time of accident.
Further, there is no dispute about involvement of vehicles i.e.,
lorry bearing registration No.KA-53/A-9156 and Tata Indica Car
bearing Regd. No.KA-05/MB-3946, further there is no dispute
the accident was occurred on 15.01.2015 at about 11.30 p.m.
near Palanajogihalli drainage, Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bengaluru.
14. Whereas, PW-1 to 6 have deposed that on that day,
time and place, the driver of said lorry bearing registration
No.KA-53/A-9156 driven in a rash and negligent manner and hi
to Tata Indica Car bearing Regd. No.KA-05/MB-3946. Per
contra Respondent No.1 taken contention as there was a
contributory negligence of the car the alleged accident was
occurred, further 2nd respondent has taken contention that the
said lorry was not involved in the alleged accident. On looking
to the pleadings of the parties, the question is arise for
consideration as whether the said accident was due to rash
18 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
and negligent manner and negligent driven by the driver of lorry
bearing Reg.No.KA-53-A-9156 or not.. In that regard, PW-1 has
produced copy of the FIR with complaint at Ex.P.1, spot
mahazar at Ex.P2, sketch at Ex.P3, IMV report at Ex.P.4 and
charge sheet at Ex.P.7, on perusal of these documents, in that,
Ex.P.1 disclosed that, one Sanaulla S/o. B.Basha who is first
informant has been submit the first information on 16.01.2015
at 01.30 A.M. to the Doddaballapura police regarding the
accident and on the same Doddaballapura police have
registered the case under Crime No.23/15 and forwarded the
FIR to concerned for the investigation of matter, herein on the
looking to date, time of accident and First information its
disclosed that there is no delay for filling first information, as
because the accident was occurred on 15.01.2015 at about
11.30 P.M.(at night) and first information submit on 16.012015
at about 1.30 A.M., thus it is seems that within 2 hour of after
the immediate of accident the first information was submit,
further Ex.P.2 speaks that, after registering the case by the
concern police and immediate after the registered the case they
have visited the spot and conducted the mahazar and seized
19 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
the both vehicles which were involved in the accident in the
presence of witnesses. Ex.P.3-spot sketch disclosed on the
actionable negligence of driver of lorry Regd.No.KA-53/A-9156
the accident was occurred, Further Ex.P.4-IMV report disclosed
that both vehicles were damaged and further disclosed that the
cause of accident was not due to any mechanical defects and
Ex.P.7-Charge Sheet discloses that Investigation officer found
sufficient material against the driver of lorry Regd. No.KA-53-A-
9156 and filed the charge sheet against the driver of said
vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and
304(A) of IPC. Further the first informant by name Sanaulla S/o.
B.Basha has been examined as P.W.7, he has deposed that on
the part of rash and negligence driven by the driver of Lorry the
alleged accident was occurred. Per contra, the 1st respondent
who is the owner of Lorry has been examined as R.W.1 he has
deposed that on the part of rash and negligence driven by the
driver of car the alleged accident was occurred, but the say of
R.W.1 is not acceptable one, as because of R.W.1 is not eye
witness and he has not challenged FIR and Final report, further
more his version is not corroborated in documentary evidence.
20 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
Thus on looking to Ex.P.1 to 4 and Ex.P.7 and oral evidence of
P.W.1 to 7 discloses that, the accident was occurred on the
negligence driven by the driver of said lorry. Hence, Tribunal
opines that petitioners have proved that rash and negligent
driven by the driver of lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-53-A-9156 the
accident was occurred. Therefore Issue No.2 of MVC.No.3333 to
3336/2015 & 3722/2015, Issue No.1 of 3722/2015 are answered
in the Affirmative.
15. Issue No.1 and 3 of MVC No.3333/2015:-
Now, herein also there is no dispute C.Naveen Kumar S/o.
Chandrappa was died in the said accident, however, P.W.1 has
produced Inquest Mahazar at Ex.P.5 and PM report at Ex.P.6
and Charge sheet at Ex.P.7, by perusing these documents
disclosed that said C.Naveen Kumar S/o. Chandrappa was
died in the accident. Now, herein, PW-1 has deposed that, he
and 2nd petitioner is the mother and father of the deceased, this
fact is also not in dispute by other side. Contrary to that there is
no material on record to come to conclusion that the petitioner
No. 1 and 2 are not mother and father respectively, however
P.W.1 has produce the Adhar Cards (3 in nos.) at Ex.P.8 and 9
21 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
by perusing the same, it's disclosed that the deceased is the
minor son of 1 and 2nd petitioner, as such, they are entitled for
compensation. So far, in respect of quantum of compensation is
concerned, the petitioners have sought for awarding
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of their minor son
by name deceased C.Naveen, so also, PW-1 has deposed
deceased C. Naveen was aged about 15 years at the time of
accident and he was studying in 8th standard, at the same time,
other side have not disputed about the age of the deceased
person. However, PW-1 has produced study Certificate at
Ex.P.10 and School record at Ex.P.11 of deceased C. Naveen,
both documents are clearly speaks that date of birth of
deceased person on 22.04.2000, on looking to the date of birth
of deceased, it's show that, his age, at the time of accidence is
as 15 years. Hon'ble Supreme court has held in recent ruling of
Munna Lal Jain case and our Hon'ble High court of
Karnataka(Circuit Bench at:Dharwad) has held in recent ruling
Oriental Insurance co.Ltd., Hubli, R/by Its Regional Manager
V/s Mahadev Genu Yellurkar & others case that age of the
deceased shall be considered for ascertaining the multiplier.
22 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
This Tribunal is bound to follow the recent ruling as stated
supra. Hence, this tribunal holds that the age of the deceased is
material. His was aged 15 years on the date of accident. Thus
as per guidelines in the case of Saral Varma, the appropriate
multiplier is 18.
16. The progress report at Ex.P.10 and 11 records reveals
that, deceased has a bright future. Looking to the age and
talent of the deceased, this tribunal inclined to assess income of
the deceased notionally sum of Rs.30,000/- p.a., Then loss of
dependency of petitioner No. 1 and 2 comes to 30,000x18 =
5,40,000/- The petitioners have lost love and affection of the
deceased and they have spent amount for transportation of
dead body and funeral expenses. The deceased was a minor
and non earning member of the family, his income is assessed
notionally. Hence the petitioners are not entitled for
compensation towards loss of estate. Therefore, the petitioners
are entitled for a compensation sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards
loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, the
23 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable compensation as
under.
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 05,40,000/-
2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 60,000/-
3. Transportation of dead body
and Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Total: Rs. 06,25,000/-
The petitioners are further entitled for interest @ 8% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of payment. Therefore Issue No.1
and 3 of MVC.No.3333 is answered in the Affirmative.
17. Issue No.1 and 3 of MVC No.3334/2015:-
Now, herein also there is no dispute Jagadeesh N. S/o.
Nanjundappa was died in the said accident, however, P.W.2
has produced Inquest Mahazar at Ex.P.12 and PM report at
Ex.P.13 and Charge sheet at Ex.P.7, by perusing these
documents disclosed that said Jagadeesh N. S/o. Nanjundappa
was died in the accident. Now, herein, PW-2 has deposed that,
her and 2nd petitioner are the mother and father of the
deceased, this fact is also not in dispute by other side. Contrary
to that there is no material on record to come to conclusion that
the petitioner No. 1 and 2 are not mother and father
respectively, however P.W.2 has produce the Adhar Card and
24 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
Voter I.D. of 1st petitioner at Ex.P.14and 17, Adhar Card of 2nd
petitioner at Ex.P.16 and Ration Card at Ex.P.18 by perusing
the same, it's disclosed that the deceased was the minor son of
1 and 2nd petitioner, as such, they are entitled for
compensation. So far, in respect of quantum of compensation is
concerned, the petitioners have sought for awarding
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of their minor son
by name deceased Jagadeesh N so also, PW-2 has deposed
deceased Jagadeesh N was aged about 13 years at the time of
accident and he was studying in 8th standard, at the same time,
other side have not disputed about the age of the deceased
person. However, PW-1 has produced study Certificate at
Ex.P.19 and School record at Ex.P.20 of deceased Jagadeesh N
both documents are clearly speaks that date of birth of
deceased person on 01.08.2001, on looking to the date of birth
of deceased, it's show that, his age, at the time of accidence is
as 14 years. Hon'ble Supreme court has held in recent ruling of
Munna Lal Jain case and our Hon'ble High court of
Karnataka(Circuit Bench at:Dharwad) has held in recent ruling
Oriental Insurance co.Ltd., Hubli, R/by Its Regional Manager
25 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
V/s Mahadev Genu Yellurkar & others case that age of the
deceased shall be considered for ascertaining the multiplier.
This Tribunal is bound to follow the recent ruling as stated
supra. Hence, this tribunal holds that the age of the deceased is
material. His was aged 14 years on the date of accident. Thus
as per guidelines in the case of Saral Varma, the appropriate
multiplier is 18.
18. The progress report at Ex.P.19 and 20 records reveals
that, deceased has a bright future. Looking to the age and
talent of the deceased, this tribunal inclined to assess income of
the deceased notionally sum of Rs.30,000/- p.a., Then loss of
dependency of petitioner No. 1 and 2 comes to 30,000x18 =
5,40,000/- The petitioners have lost love and affection of the
deceased and they have spent amount for transportation of
dead body and funeral expenses. The deceased was a minor
and non earning member of the family, his income is assessed
notionally. Hence the petitioners are not entitled for
compensation towards loss of estate. Therefore, the petitioners
are entitled for a compensation sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards
loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards
26 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, the
petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable compensation as
under.
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 05,40,000/-
2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 60,000/-
3. Transportation of dead body
and Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Total: Rs. 06,25,000/-
The petitioners are further entitled for interest @ 8% p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of payment. Therefore Issue
No.1 and 3 of MVC.No.3334 is answered in the Affirmative.
19. Issue No.1 and 3 of MVC No.3335/2015:-
Now, herein also there is no dispute Kum C.Ashwini S/o.
Chandrappa was died in the said accident, however, P.W.3 has
produced Inquest Mahazar at Ex.P.21 and PM report at Ex.P.22
and Charge sheet at Ex.P.7, by perusing these documents
disclosed that said Kum C.Ashwini S/o. Chandrappa was died
in the accident. Now, herein, PW-3 has deposed that, her and
2nd petitioner are the mother and father of the deceased, this
fact is also not in dispute by other side. Contrary to that there is
no material on record to come to conclusion that the petitioner
No. 1 and 2 are not mother and father respectively, however
27 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
P.W.3 has produce the Adhar Card of 1st petitioner at Ex.P.23,
by perusing the same, it's disclosed that the deceased was the
minor daughter of 1 and 2nd petitioner, as such, they are
entitled for compensation. So far, in respect of quantum of
compensation is concerned, the petitioners have sought for
awarding compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of their
minor daughter by name deceased Kum. Ashwani C, so also,
PW-3 has deposed deceased Kum Ashwani was aged about 11
years at the time of accident and she was studying in 5th
standard, at the same time, other side has not disputed about
the age of the deceased person. However, PW-3 has produced
study Certificate at Ex.P.25 and School record at Ex.P.26 of
deceased Kum.Ashwani both documents are clearly speaks that
date of birth of deceased person on 13.08.2004, on looking to
the date of birth of deceased, it's show that, her age, at the time
of accidence is as 11 years. Hon'ble Supreme court has held in
recent ruling of Munna Lal Jain case and our Hon'ble High court
of Karnataka(Circuit Bench at:Dharwad) has held in recent
ruling Oriental Insurance co.Ltd., Hubli, R/by Its Regional
Manager V/s Mahadev Genu Yellurkar & others case that age
28 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
of the deceased shall be considered for ascertaining the
multiplier. This Tribunal is bound to follow the recent ruling as
stated supra. Hence, this tribunal holds that the age of the
deceased is material. she was aged 11 years on the date of
accident. Thus as per guidelines in the case of Saral Varma, the
appropriate multiplier is 18.
20. The progress report at Ex.P.25 and 26 records reveals
that, deceased has a bright future. Looking to the age and
talent of the deceased, this tribunal inclined to assess income of
the deceased notionally sum of Rs.20,000/- p.a., Then loss of
dependency of petitioner No. 1 and 2 comes to 25,000x18 =
4,50,000/- The petitioners have lost love and affection of the
deceased and they have spent amount for transportation of
dead body and funeral expenses. The deceased was a minor
and non earning member of the family, his income is assessed
notionally. Hence the petitioners are not entitled for
compensation towards loss of estate. Therefore, the petitioners
are entitled for a compensation sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards
loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, the
29 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable compensation as
under.
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 04,50,000/-
2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 60,000/-
3. Transportation of dead body
and Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Total: Rs. 05,35,000/-
The petitioners are further entitled for interest @ 8% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of payment. Therefore Issue No.1
and 3 of MVC.No.3335 is answered in the Affirmative.
21. Issue No.1 and 3 in MVC.3336/2015: In view of
findings assigned by this tribunal to the above Issue No.2,
herein there is no dispute Rambabu S/o G.S.Krishnappa was
died in the said accident, however, P.W.4-Smt.Gangamma who
is wife of deceased has produced Inquest Mahazar at Ex.P.27
and PM report at Ex.P.28 and Charge sheet at Ex.P.7, by
perusing these documents disclosed that said Rambabu S/o
G.S.Krishnappa was died in the accident. Now, herein, PW-4
has deposed that, she is the wife of deceased, 2nd and 3rd
petitioners are the minor children of deceased and 4th and 5th
petitioners are the parents of deceased Rambabu; this fact is
also not in dispute by other side. however P.w.4 has produced
30 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
Aadhaar cards (3 in nos.) at Ex.P.29 and said documents
disclosed that 1st petitioner is wife and 2nd and 3rd petitioners
are the minor children of the deceased, as such Ex.P.30 i.e.,
voter I.D. card of 1st petitioner and 4th and 5th petitioners
disclosed that 4th and 5th petitioners are the parents of
deceased, so also Ex.P.32-study certificates, Ex.P.33-Admission
register extract disclosed that 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the
minor children of deceased. Contrary to that, there is no
material on record regarding relationship in between deceased
and petitioners. Therefore petitioners are the dependents of
deceased, as such, they are entitled for compensation. So far,
in respect of quantum of compensation is concerned, the
petitioners have sought for awarding compensation of Rs.
60,00,000/- for the death of Rambabu S/o G.S.Krishnappa.
22. So far Age of deceased is concerned, PW-4 has
deposed deceased Rambabu was aged about 38 years, at the
same time, other side have not disputed about the age of the
deceased person, but, in this regard, petitioners have produced
voter ID and driving licence at Ex.P.30 and 31, it is clearly
shows the date of birth of the deceased as 20.06.1976, as such
31 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
accident took place on 15.01.2015, thus on considering the both
dates, it is disclosed that the age of the deceased was 39 years
as on the date of accident. Hence, tribunal has accepted the
Ex.P.30 & 31 and tribunal had come to conclusion that, the age
of the deceased was 39 years at the time of accident. Hence,
as per directions in the case Sarala Verma and other V/s Delhi
Transport corporation and others, the appropriate multiplier is
15.
23. Further PW-4 has deposed that, deceased was
working as BMTC bus driver-cum-conductor and drawing a sum
of Rs.18,404/- per month, as such, other side have not disputed
the work of deceased, however, P.W.4 has produced the pay
slip for the month of September-2014 at Ex.P.39 and I.D. Card
at Ex.P.40 issued by BMTC Bangalore, by perusing Ex.P.39 and
Ex.P.40 disclosed that the deceased was working as Driver in
BMTC and getting salary sum of Rs.16,106/- p.m. Further
contrary to that there is no any material place before court. But,
in the cross examination of P.W.4 the Respondent No.2 has
suggested that petitioner No.1 has getting the pension and
same is denied by the P.W.4, as such Respondent No.2 has not
32 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
produced any material place before court to show that the 1st
petitioner has getting the Pension from the BMTC, Bangalore.
Thus this tribunal accepted Ex.P.39 and 40 and come to
conclusion that deceased Ramabub was working as Driver in
BMTC,Bengalore and getting the salary of Rs.16,106/- at the
time of accident, admittedly the deceased was 39 years and he
was permanent job, thus in view of guidelines in Sarala Verma
case, it is necessary to an addition of 30% of actual
salary(16,106/- %1/3=5368/-) which can be rounded 5400/-
to the actual salary income towards future prospects, when
added the same it's come sum of Rs.21,506/-p.m. Therefore,
this Tribunal has come to conclusion that petitioner was earning
a sum of Rs.21,506/-p.m. which comes per year as Rs.
Rs.21,506/-x12=2,58,072/-. Further, admittedly, the deceased
was married and petitioner No.1 to 5 are the dependents, As
such, as per Sarala Verma and others V/s. Delhi Transport
Corporation and others case, this tribunal opines that it is
necessary 1/4th amount shall be deducted towards personal
expenses of deceased in the said income of deceased amount
sum of Rs.64,518/-. After deducting the 1/4th amount towards
33 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
personal expenses in the total income which comes sum of
Rs.1,93,554 /- p.a.
24. Whereas petitioners are the dependents of the
deceased, in that 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd petitioner is the
minor son, 3rd petitioner is the minor daughter of the deceased,
4th and 5th petitioners are parents of the deceased. Further,
they have lost dependency and lost love and affection and
estate of the deceased. And they have spent amount for
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Under such
Circumstance, they have entitle for loss of dependency and
same would be Rs.1,93,554x15=29,03,310/-. Further the 1st to
5th petitioners are further entitled for a compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, further 1 to 5
petitioners are entitled for a compensation sum of Rs.50,000/-
towards loss of estate and 25,000/- towards transportation of
dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, the petitioners are
entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under.
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 29,03,310/-
2. Loss of consortium
(Petitioner No.1) Rs. 50,000/-
3. Loss of Love and Affection
(1 to 5 petitioner) Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. Loss of Estate Rs. 50,000/-
34 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
(P-1 to 5 Rs.10,000/- each)
5. Transportation of dead body
and Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Total : Rs. 31,28,310/-
The petitioners are further entitled for interest @ 8% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of payment. Therefore Issue No.1
and 3 of MVC.No.3336/2015 is answered in the Affirmative.
25. Issue No.2 of MVC No.3721/2015:- Herein the
petitioner by name Nanjundappa S/o. Somaiah has been
examined as PW-5, he has produced the wound certificate at
Ex.P.41, discharge summary at Ex.P.42, OPD issued by Govt
Hospital Doddaballapura at Ex.P.44, OPD issued by Victoria
Hospital at Ex.p.45, OPD Book issuedby PMSSY Hospital at
Ex.P.46, X-ray(5 in nos.) at Ex.P.49 and on behalf of petitioner
Dr. Ramesh has been examined as P.W.8 and he has produced
OPD at Ex.P.54, case sheet of petitioner at Ex.P.55 and x-ray(2
in nos.) at Ex.P.56. On looking to the oral evidence of P.W.5, 8
as well as Ex.P.41-wound certificate, Ex.P.55-case sheet, X-ray
at Ex.P.49 and X-ray at Ex.P.56, its discloses that, the petitioner
has sustained
1. Swelling around the right eye.
35 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
2. Swelling wound on the left eye with abrasion
3. Swelling with tenderness over the right chest with
rib fracture.
4. Swelling tendering over the left chest and ribs
fracture.
5. Tenderness over the lumbar region.
Fracture of 7th and 8rh rib (L) side with
Pneumothoriax and Fracture of L3 Vertebrae
under went Bilateral ICD Insertion L3 fracture.
said injury No.1 and 2 are simple in nature and injury No.3 to 5
are grievous in nature, petitioner underwent bilateral ICD
insertion L3 fracture treated conservatively. Further the
evidence of P.W.5 and 8 and medical documents which were
relating to injuries sustained by the petitioner are not in dispute
and further there is no reason for either disbelieve or discard
the oral evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.8 and medical documents
are not in dispute.
26. Now, P.W.1 has produced medical bills (39 in nos.) at
Ex.P.47 its comes total sum of Rs.30,703/-, The said medical
bills contains every detail of the expenses incurred by the
claimant. The same are not in dispute; and there is any material
on record about contrary to those bills, consequently the same
36 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
cannot be doubted. Hence, the petitioner is entitle for entire
medical amount sum of Rs.30,703/- under the head of Medical
expenses, hence this tribunal has come to conclusion that the
petitioner has spent about Rs.30,703/- towards medical
expenses and same is entitle by the petitioner under the head of
Medical Expenses, which can be rounded to Rs.31,000/-.
27. Further, as per oral evidence of P.W.5 and 8 and
recitals of Ex.P.41-wound certificate and Ex.P.42-discharge
summary, disclosed that the petitioner has under gone for
taking treatment he was admitted on 16.01.2015 and
discharged on 12.02.2015 as an inpatient which was shows
that the petitioner has taken treatment as an in patient for 27
days. As such, he has undergone pain and sufferings and
spent amount for diet and conveyance during said period.
Hence, the tribunal opinion that the petitioner is entitled for
compensation sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings,
Rs.20,000/- towards diet and conveyance. He is further
entitled for a compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of
amenities, further petitioner is entitle of future medical and
37 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
same is award sum of Rs.10,000/- towards future medical
expenses.
28. Further P.W.8 has assessed disability to the whole
body at 12%, the disability assessed by doctor is on higher
side, as because of, P.W.8 is not treated doctor and on looking
to nature of treatment took by the petitioner and nature of injury
sustained by the petitioner and on going through the medical
documents relating to the said injury, Further, there is no
rebuttal evidence contrary to oral evidence of P.W.8 and medical
documentary evidence with respect of disability sustained by
the petitioner, under this circumstance this tribunal has safely
accepted as 8% to whole body.
29. Whereas, so far age of petitioner is concerned, P.W.5
has deposed as his age was 45 years at the time of accident.
To prove the age, petitioner has produced Adhar Card at
Ex.P.50, it is disclosed the date of birth is 30.08.1972, but
contrary to that the voter ID at Ex.P.51 disclosed the date of
birth of petitioner as 23.02.1967, under such this tribunal
inclined towards Ex.P.51-Voter I.D. as because of, said
document is earlier document of Ex.P.50, as such the date of
38 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
accident was 15.01.2015. So, as the on the date of accident,
petitioner was aged 48 years at the time of accident. Contrary
to that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the age of
petitioner is as 48 yrs., Hence, as per directions in the case
Sarala Verma and other V/s Delhi Transport corporation and
others, the appropriate multiplier is 13.
30. Now the earning of petitioner is concerned, PW-5 has
deposed in his chief examination that he was running hotel
business and earning Rs.15,000/-p.m., to prove the same P.W.5
has not produced any documents. But except the pleading,
there is no absolutely any document to show that petitioner was
having income of Rs.15,000/-per month. Under such
circumstance, admittedly the accident was occurred in the year
2015. At that time, the scenario of income in the society of a
person who is worked on his either own skill or Art or by under
any mode, that person getting the minimum income sum of
Rs.7,000/-p.m.. Therefore, tribunal has come to conclusion that
the earning of petitioner was Rs.7,000/- p.m. at the time of
accident.
39 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
31. Admittedly, petitioner was underwent for taking
treatment as an inpatient for 48 days and nature of injury
sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal opines that petitioner
was under bed rest for a period of 3 months and lost his
earning in the said 3 months. Hence, the petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rs.7,000/- x 3= 21,000/- towards loss of
past 3 months earning and Loss of future earning can be
calculated as Rs.7,000x12x13x8%100=Rs.87,360/- which
can be consider sum of Rs.87,500/-.
32. Thus, petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable
compensation as follows:
Pain and Sufferings Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of past earnings
7000x3=21,000 Rs. 21,000/-
Medical Expenditure Rs. 31,000/-
Future Medical Expenditure Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of Future Income Rs. 87,500/-
Towards diet and conveyance Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/-
----------------------
Total: Rs.2,39,500/-
The petitioners are further entitled for interest @ 8% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of payment. Therefore Issue No.2
of MVC.No.3721/2015 is answered in the Affirmative.
40 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
33. Issue No.1 and 3 in MVC.3722/2015: In view of
findings assigned by this tribunal to the above Issue No.2,
herein there is no dispute S.E.Hanumantharayappa S/o.
Hanumantharayappa was died in the said accident, however,
P.W.6-Smt.M.A.Hemavathi who is wife of deceased has
produced PM report at Ex.P.60 and Charge sheet at Ex.P.7, by
perusing these documents disclosed that said
S.E.Hanumantharayappa S/o. Hanumantharayappa was died
in the accident. Now, herein, PW-6 has deposed that, she is the
wife of deceased, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the minor children
of deceased and 4th and 5th petitioners are the parents of
deceased S.E.Hanumantharayappa S/o. Hanumantharayappa;
this fact is also not in dispute by other side. however P.W.6 has
produced Aadhaar cards and voter I.D of herself at Ex.P.62 and
63, Aadhaar cards and voter I.D of 5th petitioner at Ex.P.61 and
65, Aadhaar cards and voter I.D of 4th petitioner at Ex.P.64 and
66, School records and birth extract of 2nd petitioner at
Ex.P.68(2 in nos.) and 69 and Birth Extract of 3rd petitioner at
Ex.P.70, by perusing all these documents disclosed that 1st
petitioner is wife and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the minor
41 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
children of the deceased and 4th and 5th petitioners disclosed
that 4th and 5th petitioners are the parents of deceased.
Contrary to that, there is no material on record regarding
relationship in between deceased and petitioners. Therefore
petitioners are the dependents of deceased, as such, they are
entitled for compensation. So far, in respect of quantum of
compensation is concerned, the petitioners have sought for
awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the death of
S.E.Hanumantharayappa S/o. Hanumantharayappa.
So far Age of deceased is concerned, PW-6 has deposed
deceased Rambabu was aged about 33 years, at the same
time, other side have not disputed about the age of the
deceased person, but, in this regard, petitioners have produced
SSLC marks card and driving licence at Ex.P.58 and 59, it is
clearly shows the date of birth of the deceased as 20.07.1979,
as such accident took place on 15.01.2015, thus on considering
the both dates, it is disclosed that the age of the deceased was
36 years as on the date of accident. Hence, tribunal has
accepted the Ex.P.58 & 59 and tribunal had come to conclusion
that, the age of the deceased was 36 years at the time of
42 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
accident. Hence, as per directions in the case Sarala Verma
and other V/s Delhi Transport corporation and others, the
appropriate multiplier is 15.
34. Further PW-6 has deposed that, deceased was
working as BMTC bus driver-cum-conductor and drawing a sum
of Rs.23,903/- per month, as such, other side have not disputed
the work of deceased, however, P.W.6 has produced the pay
slip for the month of October-2014 at Ex.P.67 issued by KSRTC
Chikkaballapur, by perusing Ex.P.67 disclosed that the
deceased was working as Driver-cum-conductor in KSRTC and
getting net salary sum of Rs.19,085/- p.m. Further contrary to
that there is no any material place before court. But, in the
cross examination of P.W.6 the Respondent No.2 has suggested
that petitioner No.1 has getting the pension and same is denied
by the P.W.6, as such Respondent No.2 has not produced any
material place before court to show that the 1st petitioner has
getting the Pension from the KSRTC, Chikkaballapur. Thus this
tribunal accepted Ex.P.67 and come to conclusion that deceased
Ramabub was working as Driver in BMTC,Bengalore and
getting the salary of Rs.19,085/- p.m. at the time of accident,
43 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
admittedly the deceased was 36 years and he was permanent
job, thus in view of guidelines in Sarala Verma case, it is
necessary to an addition of 30% of actual salary(19,085/-
%1/3=6361/-) which can be rounded 6400/- to the actual
salary income towards future prospects, when added the same
it's come sum of Rs.25,485/-p.m. Therefore, this Tribunal has
come to conclusion that petitioner was earning a sum of
Rs.25,485/-p.m. which comes per year as Rs. Rs.25,485/-
x12=3,05,820/-. Further, admittedly, the deceased was
married and petitioner No.1 to 5 are the dependents, As such,
as per Sarala Verma and others V/s. Delhi Transport
Corporation and others case, this tribunal opines that it is
necessary 1/4th amount shall be deducted towards personal
expenses of deceased in the said income of deceased amount
sum of Rs.76,455/-. After deducting the 1/4th amount towards
personal expenses in the total income which comes sum of
Rs.2,29,365 /- p.a.
35. Whereas petitioners are the dependents of the
deceased, in that 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd petitioner is the
minor son, 3rd petitioner is the minor daughter of the deceased,
44 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
4th and 5th petitioners are parents of the deceased. Further,
they have lost dependency and lost love and affection and
estate of the deceased. And they have spent amount for
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Under such
Circumstance, they have entitle for loss of dependency and
same would be Rs. 2,29,365/-x15=34,40,475/-. Further the
1st to 5th petitioners are further entitled for a compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, further 1 to 5
petitioners are entitled for a compensation sum of Rs.50,000/-
towards loss of estate and 25,000/- towards transportation of
dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, the petitioners are
entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under.
1.Loss of dependency Rs. 34,40,475/-
2. Loss of consortium
(Petitioner No.1) Rs. 50,000/-
3. Loss of Love and Affection
(1 to 5 petitioner) Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. Loss of Estate Rs. 50,000/-
(P-1 to 5 Rs.10,000/- each)
5. Transportation of dead body
and Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Total : Rs. 36,65,475/-
The petitioners are further entitled for interest @ 8% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of payment. Therefore Issue No.1
and 3 of MVC.No.3722/2015 is answered in the Affirmative.
45 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721
& 3722/2015
36. Issue No.4 of MVC No.3333, 3334, 3335, 3336,
3721 and 3722/2015 : From the above discussions, this
Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order.
ORDER
The Petitions of MVC No.3333, 3334, 3335, 3336, 3721 and 3722/2015 under Section 166 of MV Act filed by respective petitioners against the Respondent No.1 and 2 are hereby allowed in part with costs.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation in all Six petition as follows: sum of Rs.6,25,000/- to the petitioners in MVC.3333/2015 with interest @ 8% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, further the petitioner No.1 and 2 respectively are entitled to share as 50:50 in the compensation amount; And sum of Rs.6,25,000/- to the petitioners in MVC.3334/2015 with interest @ 8% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, further the petitioner No.1 and 2 respectively are entitled to share as 50:50 in the compensation amount; And sum of Rs.5,35,000/- to the petitioners in MVC.3335/2015 with interest @ 8% p.a., from the 46 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721 & 3722/2015 date of petition till realization, further the petitioner No.1 and 2 respectively are entitled to share as 50:50 in the compensation amount; And sum of Rs.31,28,310/- to the petitioners in MVC.3336/2015 with interest @ 8% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, further the petitioner No.1 to 5 respectively are entitled to share as 30:20:20:15:15in the compensation amount; And Sum of Rs.2,39,500/- to the petitioner in MVC.3721/2015 with interest @ 8% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
sum of Rs.36,65,475/- to the petitioners in MVC.3722/2015 with interest @ 8% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, further the petitioner No.1 to 5 respectively are entitled to share as 30:20:20:15:15 in the compensation amount; And Hereby directed Respondent No.2 deposit the compensation amount in all Six petition before this court within Two month from the date of Award.
After deposit of entire compensation amount in all petition by the Respondent No.2, in that 60% of amount shall be released in favour of petitioner No.1 and 2 in MVC No.3333, 3334, 3335/2015 and petitioner 1, 4 and 5 in MVC No.3336/2015 and 3722/2015 in their respective share through account payee cheque with proper identification.
47 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721 & 3722/2015 The Balance 40% amount and interest shall be deposited in the name of the respective petitioner in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period of 3 years.
And the Entire Share of compensation amount of Petitioner No.2 and 3 in MVC No. 3336/2015 and 3722/2015 shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner No.2 and 3 of said petition under guardianship as mentioned in the cause title in any nationalized, scheduled bank till she attains age 21 years.
After deposit of entire compensation amount in all petition by the Respondent No.2, in that 60% of amount shall be released in favour of petitioner of 3721/2015 through account payee cheque with proper identification. The Balance 40% amount and interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period of 3 years.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000/- each case;
Draw award accordingly.
Office is directed to keep the original copy of the Judgment in MVC No.3333/2015 and the copy 48 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721 & 3722/2015 thereof keep in MVC No.3334/2015, 3335/2015, 3336/2015, 3721/2015 and 3722/2015. (I have personally typed on the my Lap-top, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in open court of this 09th day of February 2017) (RAJANNA SANKANNAVAR) XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
PW1: Padma PW2: Parvathamma PW3: Padma PW4: Gangamma PW5: Nanjundaiah PW6: Hemavathi PW7: Sanaulla PW8: Dr.Ramesh
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
RW1: Syed Taufid Ahmed LIST OF DOCUMENTS Marked ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
Ex.P1 :
Certified copy of FIR with Complaint Ex.P2 :
Certified copy of spot mahazar Ex.P3 :
Certified copy of spot sketch Ex.P4 :
Certified copy of MV report Ex.P5 :
Certified copy of Inquest Mahazar Ex.P6 :
Certified copy of PM report.
Ex.P7 :
Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.P8 :
Notarised copy of Aadhaar cards (3 in nos.) (original shown for perusal) Ex.P9 : No documents.
Ex.P10 : Study certificate of 2nd petitioner Ex.P11 : School record of the deceased. Ex.P12 : Certified copy of Inquest Mahazar Ex.P13 : Certified copy of PM Report
49 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721 & 3722/2015 Ex.P14 : Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of 1st petitioner (original shown for perusal) Ex.P15 : Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of deceased (original shown for perusal) Ex.P16 : Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of 2nd petitioner (original not shown for perusal) Ex.P17 : Notarised copy of voter's ID of 1st petitioner (original shown for perusal) Ex.P18 : Notarised copy of ration card (original shown for perusal) Ex.P19 : Study certificate of 2nd petitioner Ex.P20 : Study certificate of deceased. Ex.P21 : Certified copy of Inquest Mahazar Ex.P22 : Certified copy of PM Report Ex.P23 : Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of 1st petitioner (original shown for perusal) Ex.P24 : Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of deceased (original shown for perusal) Ex.P25 : Study certificate of 2nd petitioner Ex.P26 : Study certificate of deceased. Ex.P27 : Certified copy of Inquest Mahazar Ex.P28 : Certified copy of PM Report Ex.P29 : Notarised copy of Aadhaar cards (3 in nos.) (original shown for perusal) Ex.P30 : Notarised copy of Voter's IDs ( 4 in nos.) (original shown for perusal) Ex.P31 : Notarised copy of driving license of deceased (original shown for perusal) Ex.P32 : Study certificates (2 in nos.) 2nd petitioner Ex.P33 : Admission register extract ( 2 in nos.) Ex.P34 : School leaving certificate Ex.P35 : Marriage invitation card Ex.P36 : Fees schedule issued by principal of Jnanadeepa Academy School, Malligenahally Ex.P37 : School fees paid receipts (7 in nos.) amounting to Rs.74,110/-.
Ex.P38 : Original Insurance policy of the Car Ex.P39 : Pay slip of the deceased for the month of September, 2014 50 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721 & 3722/2015 Ex.P40 : Free Bus pass of the deceased.
Ex.P41 : True copy of wound certificate
Ex.P42 : Discharge summary
Ex.P43 : Emergency case record for Head and spine
trauma
Ex.P44 : OPD book issued by Govt. hospital,
Doddaballapura
Ex.P45 : OPD books (02 in nos.) issued by Victoria
hospital, Bengaluru
Ex.P46 : OPD book issued by PMSSY hospital Bengaluru
Ex.P47 : Hospital and medical bills (39 in nos.) amounting
to Rs.30,703/-
Ex.P48 : Prescriptions (18 in nos.)
Ex.P49 : X-ray (05 in nos.)
Ex.P50 : Notarised copy of Aadhaar card (original shown
for perusal)
Ex.P51 : Notarised copy of voter ID (original shown for
perusal)
Ex.P52 : Notarised copy of license issued by Village
panchayat, Gowribidanuru (original shown for perusal) Ex.P.53 True copy of inquest mahazar Ex.P.54 OPD Ex.P.55 Case sheet of Nanjundappa Ex.P.56 X-ray of Nanjunadappa (2 in no's) Ex.P.57 Voter I.D. Ex.P.58 SSLC Marks Card Ex.P.59 D.L. Ex.P.60 PM report of Hanumantharayappa Ex.P.61 Aadhaar Card of Saraswatamma Ex.P.62 Aadhaar Card of Hemavati Ex.P.63 Voter I.D. of Hemavati Ex.P.64 Aadhaar Card of Yanjerappa Ex.P.65 Voter I.D. of Saraswatamma Ex.P.66 Voter I.D. of Yanjerappa Ex.P.67 Pay slip for the month of October-2014 Ex.P.68 Study certificate and School certificate Ex.P.69 Birth certificate of Male Ex.P.70 Birth Certificate of Sanjan 51 MVC.3333 to 3336 & 3721 & 3722/2015 LIST OF DOCUMENTS Marked ON BEHALF OF Respondents:
Ex.R.1 Xerox copy of Policy Ex.R.2 FC Ex.R.3 Permit Ex.R.4 Policy Ex.R.5 Driving licence Ex.R.6 RC (Rajanna Sankannanavar) XIII Addl.Small Cause Judge & Member MACT, Bengaluru.