Bangalore District Court
Smt.Kempamma vs Nataraj Kumar B on 20 October, 2015
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF OCTOBER'2014
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C Nos. 3561 and 3562/2014
Petitioners 1. Smt.Kempamma.,
(In M.V.C. Aged about 67 years,
No.3561/2014) W/o.late Doddegowda
2. Bharath Gowda,
Aged about 17 years,
S/o. late Nagaraju @ Nagaraju
B.Gowda
3. Sharath Gowda,
Aged about 15 years,
S/o. late Nagaraju @ Nagaraju
B.Gowda.,
Since petitioner No.2 and 3 are minors
in age, represented by their grand
mother/Kempamma/
petitioner No.1.
All are R/at Machanaya- kanahalli
Village, Santhenahalli Post,
Bindiganavele Hobli,
Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya District.
(By Sri C.C.Harish and Suma,
Advocates)
Petitioners 1.Smt.Kempamma.,
(In M.V.C. Aged about 67 years,
No.3562/2014) W/o.late Doddegowda
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
2. Bharath Gowda,
Aged about 17 years,
S/o. late Nagaraju @ Nagaraju
B.Gowda
3.Sharath Gowda,
Aged about 15 years,
S/o. late Nagaraju @ Nagaraju
B.Gowda.,
Since petitioner No.2 and 3 are minors
in age, represented by their grand
mother/Kempamma/
petitioner No.1.
All are R/at Machanaya- kanahalli
Village, Santhenahalli Post,
Bindiganavele Hobli,
Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya District.
(By Sri C.C.Harish and Suma,
Advocates)
-Vs-
Respondents: 1. Nataraj Kumar B
(Common in both C/o.Vinayaka Transport
the cases) No.194. 2nd Cross,
Nataraj building,
Rajagopalanagar
Peenya 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-58
(RC owner of car bearing No.KA-
02/MG-2886)
Since dead Rptd by LRs
A) Manjula
W/o.Late.Nataraj Kumar.B.,
Aged Major
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
B) Pooja
D/o.Late.Nataraj Kumar.B.,
Aged Major
C) Parthana
D/o.Late.Nataraj Kumar.B., Aged
Major
D) Punith Gowda
S/o.Late.Nataraj Kumar.B.,
Aged Major
E) Hemalatha
D/o.Late.Nataraj Kumar.B.,
Aged Major
F)Preethi
D/o.Late.Nataraj Kumar.B.,
Aged Major
G)Prashantha
S/o.Late.Nataraj Kumar.B.,
Aged Major
All are R/at
No.194, 2nd Cross
Nataraj Building,
Rajagopalanagar,
Peenya II Stage, Bangalore-58.
H) Devendra Kumar
S/o.Bhojaraj
Aged Major
i)Jagadeesh Kumar
S/o.Bhojaraj
Aged Major
H and I both R/at No.70
JDN Complex
Near Maruthi Talkies
Rajagopalnagar, Bangalore-58
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
2.Bajaj Allianz General Ins.Co.,
Limited,
No.105-A to 107-A
No.136, 1st Floor, Cears Plaza
No.136, Residency Road,
Bangalore.
(Policy NO.OG-14-1701-1801-
00063464 )
(Deleted)
COMMON JUDGMENT
Both these petitions are filed by the respective
petitioners seeking compensation of Rs.30 lakhs each in
both petitions, for the death of 1st petitioner's son and
daughter-in-law and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners' father and
mother, who died in the accident that occurred on
8-6-2014 .
2. Since both these petitions are arising out of the
same accident and therefore, they are clubbed together and
disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The brief facts of the cases are:
It is the case of the petitioners in both the cases that,
on 8-6-2014 at about 7p.m. when the deceased Nagaraj @
Nagaraj B.Gowda and the deceased Smt.Manjula were
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
proceeding in the motor cycle bearing No.KA.54/H.7187 on
the extreme left side of B.M.Road, NH-75 and they
reached at Bookanabetta gate, Hirisave Hobli,
Channarayapatna, at that time, the driver of the car
bearing No.KA.02/MG-2886 came from Hassan towards
Bangalore in a rash and negligent manner, without
observing the traffic rules and dashed against the Bajaj
Discovery bike, as a result, both of them fell down and
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the injured
persons were shifted to Hirisave Government hospital, but
on the way to the said hospital, Nagaraj @ Nagaraj
B.Gowda was succumbed to the injuries. Smt.Manjula was
shifted to Adhichunchanagiri hospital and she was also
succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners have spent
Rs.50,000/- each towards, medical, hospitalization,
transportation of dead body and for conducting funeral and
obsequious ceremonies.
5. It is contended that the deceased Nagaraj was hale
and healthy and was running hotel business and earning
Rs.30,000/-p.m. He was maintaining the family. The
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
deceased Smt.Manjula was doing Tailoring job and earning
Rs.8000/-p.m. Due to untimely death of the deceased,
the petitioners were put to untold misery. The 1st petitioner
being mother and mother-in-law and the petitioner No.2
and 3 are the minor children of the deceased persons , who
have lost the bread earning member in their family.
6. The jurisdictional police-Hirisave haven registered
a case against the driver of the car for the offence
punishable under Sec.279,337 and 304-A of IPC. 1st
respondent's legal representatives are the owner and the
2nd respondent being the insurer are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
7. In pursuant of these claim petitions, this Tribunal
has issued notice against the respondents. 1st respondent
LRs are the owner have placed exparte. 2nd respondent
appeared before this Tribunal through their counsel and
filed objections statement denying the issuance of policy
and contended on the date of alleged accident, there was
no contract of insurance between the owner and the
alleged vehicle involved in the accident. The petitioners
have also not furnished the details of the policy. However,
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
without prejudice to the above contentions, the respondent
No.2 has denied the liability and seeks protection under
Sec.147 and 149 of MV Act. It is also contended that the 1st
respondent has not complied the Sec.134 (c) of MV Act.
The police have not complied the mandatory provision as
per Sec.158(6) of MV Act. Further denied the negligence on
the part of driver of the car and also denied nature of
injuries and the death of deceased persons, their age,
avocation and income is not admitted and the petitioners
have to prove the same. The respondent No.2 also
contended that the claims made by the petitioners in both
the petitions are exorbitant. Hence, the 2nd respondent
prayed to dismiss both the petitions.
8. The above pleadings gave rise to framing of the
following common issues:-
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased
succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident
that occurred on 8-6-2014 at about 7.00 pm., on
B.M. (NH75) road at Bokkanabetta gate, Hirisave
Hobli, C.R,.Patna, within the jurisdiction of
Hirisave Police Station on account of rash and
negligent driving of the car bearing registration
No.KA.02/MG-2886 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so how much and from whom?
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
3. What order or award?
9. After framing of the issues, the petitioners in order
to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 in both MVC
Nos.3561/2014 and 3562/2014 is examined as PW 1 and
got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.15. Both cases are
clubbed together. 2nd respondent has filed a memo for
deleting of 2nd respondent on the ground that the offending
vehicle has no insurance policy at the time of accident.
Hence, the memo filed before this Tribunal is allowed. The
2nd respondent is deleted. Carry-out the amendment. The
respondent No.1 in both cases is placed exparte and hence
taken no cross of PW-1. The petitioners have also not lead
further evidence.
10. After closure of evidence, I have heard the
arguments of the petitioners' counsel and posted the case
for judgment.
11. Having heard the arguments of the petitioners'
counsel, based on the pleadings, evidence placed on
record, my findings on the above issues are as under:-
1) Issue No.1 ....In the affirmative,
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
2) Issue No.2 ....Partly in the affirmative,
3) Issue No.3 ...As per final order, for the
following:-
REASONS
12. Issue No.1 in MVC.3561/14 &3562/14:- Since
both these claim petitions are arising out of the same
accident and issue No.1 in both the petitions is regarding
the negligence of the driver of the car, they are taken up
together for discussion.
13. It is the case of the petitioners in both the petitions
that the Nagaraj and Smt.Manjula were proceeding in the
motor cycle bearing No.KA.54/H-7187 on 8-6-2014 at 7
p.m., on B.M road, NH-75 and when they reached at
Bookanabetta Gate, Hirisave Hobli, Channarayapatna,
within the jurisdiction of Hirisave police station, at that
time, a car bearing No.KA.02/MG-2886 driven by its driver
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the motor cycle, due to the impact, both of them fell down
and sustained grievous injuries.
14. It is the contention of the petitioners that this
accident taken place due to the rash and negligence on the
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
part of the driver of the car. The petitioners have also relied
upon the documents FIR, spot mahazar, sketch and IMV
report as Exs.P.1 to P.4 and also charge sheet as Ex.P.9.
These documents are unchallenged. The evidence of PW-1
remained unchallenged. In the absence of any contra
evidence, this court has to accept the version of PW-1 and
documentary evidence, which are marked as Ex.P.1 to P.4
and charge sheet at Ex.P.9.
15 On perusal of sketch, which is marked as Ex.P.3
discloses that the motor cycle was on extreme left side of
the road and at that time, a car which came and dashed
against the motor cycle and Ex.P.3 has not been disputed.
Ex.P.4-IMV report also discloses that the damages caused
to both vehicles, in the accident. The IMV inspector has
opined that this accident was not due to any mechanical
defect. For having taken note of the documentary evidence
at Ex.P.3 and P.4 and also after investigation, the police
have also filed charge sheet against the driver of the car. I
have already pointed out that the evidence of PW-1, oral as
well as documentary evidence was not challenged by the
respondents. Hence, I accept the evidence of PW-1 in both
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
the petitions and issue No.1 in both the petitions are
answered in the affirmative.
16. Issue No.2 in MVC Nos.3561/14 &3562/14:- In
both the petitions, the petitioners have examined PW-1-
Kempamma, who is none other than the mother and
mother-in-law and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the minor
children of the deceased. Pw-1 has relied upon the inquest
and Post mortem report of the deceased persons, Obituary
card, ration card, Lab report, referral Letter, medical bills
worth Rs.7,560/-and 7prescriptions in respect of
Smt.Manjula.
17. In a case of death, in order to arrive at the
compensation to be awarded to the petitioners, the age,
avocation, income and the number of dependants, play
vital role.
18. In the case on hand, the petitioner in
MVC.3561/2014 have claimed that the deceased Nagaraj
was running hotel business and earning Rs.30,000/-p.m.
The petitioners have not placed any materials before this
Tribunal.
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
19. The petitioners in MVC.3562/14 have contended
that the deceased Manjula was doing Tailoring work and
earning Rs.8,000/-p.m. No documentary evidence is placed
before this Tribunal to show that she was doing Tailoring
working and earning Rs.8,000/-p.m.
20. There are no other documents to substantiate their
avocation. For having taken note of the age of both the
deceased, in respect of son of PW-1, petitioners have relied
upon PM report and ration card. The ration card is marked
as Ex.P.11, which discloses the age of the deceased
Nagaraj as 38years and age of the deceased Smt.Manjula is
mentioned as 30 years. This ration card was issued on
07-11-2012. Hence, the age of the deceased Nagaraju
becomes 41 years and the deceased Smt.Manjula becomes
33years.
21. On perusal of Ex.P.6-P.M report, the age of
deceased Nagaraj is mentioned as 45 years. In between the
age group of 41-45 years, the relevant multiplier applicable
to the case on hand in respect of Nagaraju is 14. In
respect of Smt.Manjula's P.M.report at Ex.P.8 discloses,
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
the age of Manjula is shown as 33years and the relevant
multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 16.
22. Thus, for having taken note of the documentary
proof regarding the avocation, even if Nagaraj is taken as
coolie, he would have earned Rs.7,000/-p.m. and the same
has been taken into consideration.
23. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment
reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh), the
Apex Court held that even if a person is self employed, loss
of future prospects has to be taken into consideration and
hence, as the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of
accident, 30%, from out of his income, has to be taken as
loss of future prospects, which works out to Rs.2,100/-
and thus the total works out to Rs.9,100/-.
24. 1/3rd out of the total income of the deceased has to
be deducted towards the personal expenses of the
deceased, had he been alive. If that be so, the monthly loss
of dependency works out to Rs.9,100/- and annually, it
works out to Rs.1,09,200/-. The same has to be multiplied
by 14 multiplier, having regard to the age of the deceased
as 45 years and therefore, the total loss of dependency
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
works out to Rs.72,800/-, which is rounded off to
Rs.10,19,200/-, after deducting 1/3rd personal expenses.
25. Apart from that, the petitioners are also held to be
entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- under the head 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.10,000/- towards
cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses,
post mortem and mortuary charges as held in the recent
judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706
(Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy).
Thus the petitioners are entitled to compensation as
under:-
Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount of
Compensation
1. Loss of dependency 10,19,200.00
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
3. Cost incurred on account of 10,000.00
funeral and ritual expenses,
Total 11,29,200.00
The petitioners in MVC.3461/2014 are entitled for
compensation of Rs.11,29,200.00
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
MVC:-3562/2014:
It is the claim of the petitioners that she was doing
Tailoring work and earning Rs.8,000/-p.m. I have already
point out that no documentary evidence is placed before
this Tribunal to show that she was doing Tailoring job. In
the absence of documentary evidence regarding income of
the deceased, I have taken her income as Rs.6,000/-p.m.,
assuming that she is a coolie.
26. In view of the principles laid down in the
judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir
Singh), the Apex Court held that even if a person is self
employed, loss of future prospects has to be taken into
consideration and hence, as the deceased Manjula was
aged 33 years at the time of accident, 50% from out of her
income, has to be taken as loss of future prospects, which
works out to Rs.3000/- and thus the total works out to
Rs.9000/-p.m. and annually works to Rs.1,08,000/-.
27. 1/3rd out of the total income of the deceased has
to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the
deceased, had she been alive, since she was married and
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
she is left behind by her children and mother-in-law. Her
family had 3 members including herself. If that be so, the
monthly loss of dependency works out annually to
Rs.72,000/-. The same has to be multiplied by 16
multiplier, having regard to the age of the deceased as 33
years and therefore, the total loss of dependency works out
to Rs.11,52,000/-.
28. Apart from that, the petitioners are also held to be
entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- under the head 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.10,000/- towards
cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses,
post mortem and mortuary charges as held in the recent
judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706
(Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy).
29. The petitioners have relied upon the medical bills
at Ex.P.14 to the tune of Rs.7,560/-(9 in nos) These bills
are issued Adichunchanagiri hospital Pharma .The records
also discloses that immediately, she was taken to
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
Adhichunchanagiri hospital and deceased Manjula
succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident, even
after best treatment. Hence, I round up the medical bills
to the tune of Rs.7560/- to Rs.8,000/- which has been
incurred by the petitioners prior to the death of
Smt.Manjula.
Thus the petitioners are entitled to compensation as
under:-
Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount of
Compensation
1. Loss of dependency 11,52,000.00
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
3. Cost incurred on account of 10,000.00
funeral and ritual expenses,
mortuary charges and PM
charges,
4 Medical expenses during 8,000.00
treatment period
Total Rs.12,70,000.00
The petitioners in MVC.3562/2014 are entitled for
compensation of Rs.12,70,000.00
30. As discussed above, the petitioner No.1 is the
mother, petitioner No.2 and 3 are the minor children of
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14
the deceased. The compensation amount is apportioned
amongst them in the following manner:-
Petitioner No.1 - Mother 20%
Petitioner No.2 - Son 40%
Petitioner No.3 - Daughter 40%
31. Regarding the liability is concerned, 2nd
respondent -insurer has been deleted, since, there was no
insurance policy. 1st respondent are the LRs of the owner.
The LRs of the owner are liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners, in the absence of contract of indemnifying. The
LRs of the 1st respondent are bound to pay compensation
to the petitioners. Accordingly, issue No.2 in MVC
No.3561/2014 and 3562/2014 are answered.
32. Issue No.3: In the result I proceed to pass the
following: -
ORDER
The petitions MVC.3561/2014 and 3562/2014 are partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners in MVC.3561/14 are awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,29,200/- and the petitioners in MVC.3562/2014 are awarded compensation of Rs. 12,70,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% MVC.3561/14 &3562/14 per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the LRs of 1st respondent.
The LRs of respondent No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order, in both petitions.
The compensation amount is apportioned amongst them in the following manner in both petitions:-
Petitioner No.1 - Wife - 20% Petitioner No.2 - Son - 40% Petitioner No.3 - Son - 40% Out of the compensation amount so awarded in favour of petitioner No.1, in both petitions, entire amount with interest is ordered to be released in her favour, on proper identification.
As far as petitioners No.2 and 3 in both petitions are concerned, since they are minors, their portion of compensation amount is ordered to be deposited in their respective names until they attain majority in any of the nationalized or schedule bank of the choice of petitioner No.1. Interest accrued on deposit is ordered to be released to petitioner No.1 for the maintenance of minor children quarterly.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case.
Original of the judgment shall be kept in MVC No.3561/2014 and a copy of the same be retained in the remaining case.
MVC.3561/14 &3562/14 Draw an award accordingly, in both petitions.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcription thereof is revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in Open Court on 20.10.2014) (H.P.SANDESH) MEMBER, PRL.MACT ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1: Kempamma., Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :Nil Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : FIR Ex.P-2 : Spot mahazar Ex.P-3 : Sketch Ex.P-4 : IMV report Ex.P-5 : Inquest of my son Ex.P-6 : PM report of my son Ex.P-7 : Inquest of my daughter-in-law Ex.P-8 : PM report of my daughter-in-law Ex.P.9 Charge sheet Ex.P.10 Obituary card Ex.P.11 Notarised copy of ration card (original compared) Ex.P.12 Lab report of my daughter-in-law MVC.3561/14 &3562/14 Ex.P.13 Referral letter Ex.P.14 Medical bills ( 9 in nos.) for Rs. 7,560/- Ex.P.15 7 Prescriptions Documents marked on behalf of the respondents: Nil (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore