Bangalore District Court
Sanu Ganda @ Sono Bai Gand vs Sri.Mohan Priya Borewells on 15 October, 2015
1 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No. 340/2015 C/w. M.V.C.No.341/2015
PETITIONERS : Sanu Ganda @ Sono Bai Gand
(in MVC 340/15) @ Sanu Gound
W/o. Late. Dhanasingh Gound @
Lachhaman Gand
@ Dhanasing Ganda
Aged about 45 years
Residing at:
Kukurkuan Village,
Jodinga G.P/ Town,
Raighar P.S.
Nabarangpur District,
Odisha State.
PETITIONERS : Dhanu Gound @ Dhanu Ganda
(in MVC No.341/15) @ Dhanu Gond
S/o. Ghasia Ganda,
Aged about 51 years
Residing at:
Kua Village,
Jodinga G.P./Town,
Raighar P.S.,
Nowrangapur District,
Orissa State.
(By Sri.G.C.Rajesh, Advocate in
both the cases)
-Vs-
2 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
RESPONDENTS : 1. Sri.Mohan Priya Borewells
in both the cases No.11-12, 2nd Main Road,
3rd Cross, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 18.
(R.C.Owner of Borewell Lorry
Reg.No. KA-01-D-9257)
(By Sri.Umesha R. Adv.,)
2. The Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd.,
Policy issuing office at
DO.V, Bengaluru,
No.1, Shankara House,
RMV Extension,
Mekhri Circle,
Bangalore - 80.
Policy
No.421500/31/2014/3483
Valid from:
01/12/14 to 31/01/15
(By Smt.Prathima V. Adv.,)
********
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two petitions are arising out of the same accident and
therefore, they are disposed off by this common judgment.
2. These petitions are filed under Section 166 of the of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/- each in both the petitions for the death of deceased
Santhuram Gound in MVC No.340/2015 and Kailash @ Gobilash
3 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
in MVC No.341/2015 respectively, who died in the road traffic
accident which took place on 23.12.2014.
3. Brief facts of the cases are that:-
It is the cases of the claimants that, both the deceased
persons were traveling in Borewell Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-D-
9257 from Kanakapura side towards Hunasanahalli Village as per
the direction of employer i.e., Mohanapriya, Borewells Proprietor
on 23.12.2014 at about 12.00 p.m. and when they reached near
Maraladoddi Village, Kodihalli-Hunasanahalli Road, Kodihalli
Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, at that time,
driver of the said Borewell Lorry has driven the Lorry without
observing any traffic rules and regulations in rash and negligent
manner endangering to human life and he has lost control of speed
and as a result, the Lorry was toppled and caused the accident and
due to the impact of the said accident, these two persons have
sustained head injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries
on the spot.
4. It is further case of the Petitioners that, soon after the
accident the dead body of both the deceased persons were shifted
to Rajarajeswari Hospital, Bangalore, wherein, post mortem was
conducted and bodies were handed over to the Petitioners and they
have shifted the body to their native place and conducted
4 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
obsequies ceremonies and they spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-
each respectively.
5. It is also their case that, on account of due to sudden
demise of these persons, the family of the Petitioners have lost
bread earning member of the families and the deceased persons
were hale and healthy and they were earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. as
a Helper-cum-Coolie at Mohana Priaya Borewells, Bangalore and
they were contributing their entire income to the family.
6. The Petitioner in MVC No.340/2015 is the mother of
the deceased and Petitioner in MVC No.341/2015 is the father of
the deceased and both of them have lost their care taker sons and
family of the Petitioners were ruined on account of death of these
deceased.
7. The Police after receiving the complaint have registered
case and investigated matter and filed charge sheet against the
driver of the Lorry for the offences punishable under Sec.279, 337,
304(a) of IPC and the first Respondent is the owner of the Lorry
and the second Respondent being the Insurer of the said Lorry and
both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation as
claimed in the petitions with interest.
8. In pursuance of these claim petitions, this Court has
issued notices against both the Respondents and both the
5 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
Respondents have represented through counsels and filed their
objection statements.
9. The 1st Respondent in the objection statement
admitted the averments made in column No.22 and also admitted
deceased persons were traveling in borewell Lorry and they were
employed and they were getting salary of Rs.15,000/- p.m. as
Helper-cum-Coolie in their company. It is also contended that, the
1st Respondent has spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of
cash towards funeral and transportation charges of the dead body
and admitted alleged accident took place due to on account of rash
and negligent driving of driver of the Lorry and vehicle was insured
with 2nd Respondent and policy was in force and if there is any
liability, the 2nd Respondent has to indemnify the same and prayed
the Court to dismiss the claim petitions.
10. The 2nd Respondent in the objection statement has
contended that, petition is not maintainable and averments made
in para No.1 to 22 are not admitted however, admitted the
issuance of policy and liability if any, is subject to terms and
conditions of the policy. It is further contended that, the driver of
the offending Lorry was not having valid and effective driving
licence to drive the Lorry on the date of the accident and insured
also did not possess the valid FC, RC and valid permit and thereby
he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
6 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
11. The 2nd Respondent further contended that, they have
issued Insurance Certificate cum Policy Schedule GCCV-Public
Carriers other than Three Wheelers Package Policy and as per the
policy seating capacity is 1+1, which is meant for the driver and
driller of the vehicle and admitted as per the complaint and other
police records there were 7 persons inclusive of deceased persons
and they were proceeding in the said vehicle as un-authorized
passengers and hence, insured has violated the terms and
conditions of the policy and therefore, the 2nd Respondent is not
liable to pay compensation amount and hence, petitions ought to
be dismissed as against the Respondent No.2.
12. The Respondent No.2 has also contended that, the
deceased persons were traveling in Borewell Lorry and petitioners
have to prove that, they were traveling in the Lorry, employed with
the 1st Respondent and also Petitioners have to prove their age and
also their occupation and they have to produce the documents to
prove age and occupation of the deceased persons. It is further
contended that, compensation claimed by the claimants in both
the petitions is fanciful, exorbitant and it is only an attempt to
make unlawful gain.
13. The Respondent No.2 has also contended that, the
insured has not informed the details of the accident to the Insurer
as required under Sec.134(c) of the M.V.Act and violated the terms
7 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
and conditions of the policy and jurisdictional Police have not
complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.158(6) of the M.V.Act
and hence, the 2nd Respondent is not liable to pay any
compensation as claimed in the petitions. The Respondent also
contended that, the Petitioner also may be directed to give an
undertaking to this Hon'ble Court that, if award is made by more
than once for the same injury arising out of the same accident,
they shall have liberty to retain the award first made and may be
directed to refund subsequent compensation granted.
14. The 2nd Respondent also reserves the right to defend
the case under Sec.170 of the M.V.Act, if the first Respondent fails
to contest the matter and also reserves the right to file additional
statement of objection in the changed circumstances. Hence,
prayed this Court to dismiss the claim petitions.
15. Based on the pleadings, this Court has framed the
following:-
ISSUES
In M.V.C.No.340/2015
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that the deceased
succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that
occurred on 23.12.2014 at about 12.00 p.m. near
Maraladoddi Village, Kodihalli-Hunasanahalli Road,
Kodihalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara Dist.,
within the jurisdiction of Kodihalli Police Station on
account of rash and negligent driving of the Borewell
Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-D-9257 by its
driver?
8 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, how much and from whom?
3. What order?
In M.V.C.No.341/2015
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that the deceased
succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that
occurred on 23.12.2014 at about 12.00 p.m. near
Maraladoddi Village, Kodihalli-Hunasanahalli Road,
Kodihalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara Dist.,
within the jurisdiction of Kodihalli Police Station on
account of rash and negligent driving of the Borewell
Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-D-9257 by its
driver?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, how much and from whom?
3. What order?
16. The Petitioner in MVC No.340/2015 is examined as
PW-1 and got marked the documents Ex.P1 to 12 and also
Petitioner in MVC No.341/2015 is examined as PW-2 and got
marked Ex.P.13 to 20. The Respondent No.1 is examined as RW-1
and got marked Ex.R.1 to R.7 and second Respondent has not led
any evidence before the Court.
17. Based on the pleadings and the evidence available on
record, I record my findings on the above issues as under:-
MVC No.340/2015:
1. Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
9 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
2. Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
3. Issue No.3 : As per final order
for the following:
MVC No.341/2015:
1. Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
2. Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
3. Issue No.3 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
18. Issue No.1 in both the cases:
It is the case of the Petitioners that, on 23.12.2014 at abut
12.00 p.m. both the deceased persons were proceeding in Bore well
Lorry near Maraladoddi Village, Kodihalli-Hunasanahalli Road,
Kodihalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District and at
that time, the driver of the said Lorry driven the Lorry in rash and
negligent manner and as a result, the vehicle was toppled and both
of them have fell down and sustained injuries and died on the
spot. The Respondent No.1, who appeared before the Court has
filed written statement admitting the accident and the Respondent
No.2, who is the Insurer has denied the negligence on the part of
the driver of Lorry and Respondent No.2 have not led any evidence
before the Court and in the cross-examination of PW-1 and 2, it is
suggested that, the accident was occurred due to negligence on the
part of these deceased persons and these suggestions were denied
10 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
by both PW-1 and 2 and except these suggestions, there is no any
rebuttal evidence from the part of the Respondent No.2 and this
Court as to believe the version of PW-1 and documentary evidence.
The Petitioners have relied upon FIR, Mahazar, Sketch as Ex.P.1 to
3 and Charge Sheet as Ex.P.6 and I have already pointed out that
even documentary evidence has not been denied by the
Respondent No.2, though disputed negligence and there is clear
allegation against the driver of the Lorry that, due to his negligence
the accident was occurred and Sketch as Ex.P.3 also has not been
disputed and it clearly disclosed that, the vehicle was toppled and
there was a curve in the road and the driver would have driven the
vehicle in a slow manner and Police have also after investigation
have filed charge sheet in Ex.P.6 and when the owner has admitted
the negligence was on account of the driver of his Lorry, then
Court has to accept the version of PW-1 and documentary evidence
available before the Court. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in both the
cases in the affirmative in the absence of rebuttal evidence.
19. Issue No.2 in both the cases:-
MVC No.340/2015:
The Petitioner in MVC No.340/2015, who is none other than
mother of the deceased and she has reiterated the averments of the
petition that, her son was working as Helper-cum-Coolie and he
was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. and the Petitioner has relied upon
11 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
Inquest Report and P.M.Report as Ex.P.4 and 5 and also produced
Aadhar Card, Election ID Card of both deceased and the claimant
as Ex.P.8 to 10 and also produced Embalming Certificate and
Cause of Death Certificate as Ex.P.11 and 12. In the cross-
examination of PW-1, she admits that, she has not produced any
documents to show that she has spent an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- for cremation, transportation and other incidental
expenses. She says that, deceased is her younger son and she has
not produced Ration Card. It is suggested that, she is aged more
than 55 years and the said suggestions was denied and she says
that, her elder son is aged about 30 years and also she admits
that, she has not produced any documents to show that, her son
was working in Borewell and it was suggested that, he was working
at borewells at the time of the accident. It is important to note that,
the owner has been examined as RW-1 and in his evidence he
admits the employment and also he says that, the deceased was
working as Helper-cum-Coolie and he was drawing salary of
Rs.500/- per day and he has produced the vehicular documents
and he claims that, there were 8 employees working in the said
borewell and he only sent the labourers on the date of accident and
he was making weekly payment as Rs.500/- per day and they were
working from last 1 year. He says that, he has produced the
documents to show that he was proprietor of Mohan Priya Bore
12 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
wells and he admits that, he has maintained records regarding
employer and he can produce the same before the Court and he
admits that, while digging bore wells 8 persons service is required
and he used to visit the spot. He admits that, he has not produced
any documents to show that how many workers have worked on
the date of the accident and on the date of the accident their
people went to dig borewell at Maraladoddi and he says they have
maintained details of work in respect of date of accident also and
he can produce the details of the same before the Court. It is
suggested that, these two deceased persons were not working with
him and hence, he is not having any documents and the said
suggestions was denied. He says that, he was making payment by
cash and he was making weekly payment and he used to take note
of working days while making the payment.
20. For having taking note of evidence of PW-1 and also
RW-1, it is clear that, deceased were working with the Respondent
No.1. But, Respondent No.1 says that he was making payment of
Rs.500/- per day, but he has not produced any documentary proof
for having paid the amount of Rs.500/- and he claims that he was
making weekly payment and though he admits that, he can
produce the documents regarding employment, he has not
produced any documentary proof and no doubt, the accident took
place when the Borewell Lorry was toppled and they died at the
13 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
spot and the said fact cannot be disputed and regarding income is
concerned there is no material even though RW-1 admits that he
was paying Rs.500/- per day in order to substantiate his claim he
has not placed any materials before the Court and hence, for
having taken note of nature of the work and borewell instead of
taking Rs.500/- as salary per day, I have taken their income as
Rs.250/- per day and it comes to Rs.7,500/- p.m., since the
deceased is engaged in manual work of digging borewell.
21. The Petitioner has not produced any documentary
proof regarding age and only Election ID Card of the deceased
which is marked as Ex.P.10 disclosed his date of birth as 1994 and
hence, it is clear that he was aged about 20 years and the
Respondents have also not produced any rebuttal evidence before
the Court as against the document Ex.P.10 and Petitioner also in
the petition claims that, the deceased was aged about 21 years and
Ex.P.10 does not disclose date of birth and the accident was taken
place on 23.12.2014 and in between age group of 20 to 25, the
relevant multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 18.
22. In the recent judgment of Apex Court reported in
2015 AIR SCW 3105 (Munna Lal Jain and another Vs.Vipin Kumar
Sharma and others), held that - 'age of the deceased has to be
taken as multiplier and inview of the said judgment by taking his
age and considering the claimant as only one, 50% has to be
14 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
deducted from his salary and inview of the principles laid down in
the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh),
50% has to be added as future prospects
23. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,500/- per
month, 50% of which works out to Rs.3,750/- and thus the total
works out to Rs.11,250/-. p.m.
24. In the recent judgment of Apex court in Sarala Varma's
case it is held that, if the deceased is a bachelor 50% of the income
has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, 50% of the
income of the deceased is to be deducted for personal expenses i.e.,
Rs.5,625/- (50% of Rs.11,250/-). Thus, the annual loss of
dependency works out to Rs.67,500/- (Rs.5,625/-x12) and if we
multiply the said amount by the 18 multiplier applicable to the
case on hand, it works out to Rs.12,15,000/-, (67,500/-x18) to
which the petitioner is entitled to under the head Loss of
dependency.
25. 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
15 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and
ritual expenses. Though the petitioner has produced ambulance
charge of Rs.68,000/- as Ex.P.18, it has not been proved by
adducing the evidence of author of Ex.P.18.
26. The details of compensation I propose to award are as
under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 12,15,000-00
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. Cost incurred on account of 10,000-00
funeral and ritual expenses
Total 13,25,000-00
In all the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.13,25,000/-.
MVC No.341/2015:
27. The Petitioner in MVC No.341/2015, who is none
other than father of the deceased and he has reiterated the
averments of the petition that, his son was working as Helper-cum-
Coolie and he was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. and the Petitioner has
relied upon Inquest Report and P.M.Report as Ex.P.13 and 14 and
also produced his Aadhar Card and Election ID Card as Ex.P.16 &
16 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
17 and also produced Embalming Certificate and Cause of Death
Certificate as Ex.P.19 and 20. In the cross-examination of PW-2,
he admits that, he has not produced any documents to show that
he has spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for cremation,
transportation and other incidental expenses. He says that,
deceased is her younger son. It is suggested that, he is aged more
than 55 years and the said suggestions was denied and he says
that, his elder son is aged about 30 years and also he admits that,
he has not produced any documents to show that, his son was
working in Borewell and it was suggested that, he was working at
borewells at the time of the accident.
28. It is important to note that, the owner has been
examined as RW-1 and in his evidence he admits the employment
and also he says that, the deceased was working as Helper-cum-
Coolie and he was drawing salary of Rs.500/- per day and he has
produced the vehicular documents and he claims that, there were
8 employees working in the said borewell and he only sent the
labourers on the date of accident and he was making weekly
payment as Rs.500/- per day and they were working from last 1
year. He says that, he has produced the documents to show that
he was proprietor of Mohan Priya Bore wells and he admits that,
he has maintained records regarding employer and he can produce
the same before the Court and he admits that, while digging bore
17 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
wells 8 persons service is required and he used to visit the spot. He
admits that, he has not produced any documents to show that how
many workers have worked on the date of the accident. On the
date of the accident their people went to dig bore well at
Maraladoddi and he says they have maintained details of work in
respect of date of accident also and he can produce the details
before the Court. It is suggested that, these two deceased persons
were not working with him and hence, he is not having any
documents and the said suggestions was denied. He says that, he
was making payment by cash and he was making weekly payment
and he used to take note of working days while making the
payment.
29. For having taking note of evidence of PW-2 and also
RW-1, it is clear that, deceased were working with the Respondent
No.1. But, Respondent No.1 says that he was making payment of
Rs.500/- per day, but he has not produced any documentary proof
for having paid the amount of Rs.500/- and he claims that he was
making weekly payment and though he admits that, he can
produce the documents regarding employment, he has not
produced any documentary proof and no doubt, the accident took
place when the Borewell Lorry was toppled and they died at the
spot and the said fact cannot be disputed and regarding income is
concerned there is no material even though RW-1 admits that he
18 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
was paying Rs.500/- per day in order to substantiate his claim he
has not placed any materials before the Court and hence, for
having taken note of nature of the work and borewell instead of
taking Rs.500/- as salary per day, I have taken their income as
Rs.250/- per day and it comes to Rs.7,500/- p.m. Since the
deceased is engaged in manual work of digging borewell.
30. The Petitioner has not produced any documentary
proof regarding age of the deceased. In Inquest and P.M.Report at
Ex.P.13 and 14 the age of the deceased is mentioned as 26 years
and Petitioner also in the petition claims that, the deceased was
aged about 26 years and the accident was taken place on
23.12.2014. Having taken note of the age of the deceased
mentioned in medical records, the age of the deceased is 26 years
at the time of the accident and the relevant multiplier applicable to
the case on hand is 17.
31. In the recent judgment of Apex Court reported in
2015 AIR SCW 3105 (Munna Lal Jain and another Vs.Vipin Kumar
Sharma and others), held that - 'age of the deceased has to be
taken as multiplier and inview of the said judgment by taking his
age and considering the claimant is only one, 50% has to be
deducted from his salary and inview of the principles laid down in
the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh),
50% has to be added as future prospects
19 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
32. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,500/- per
month, 50% of which works out to Rs.3,750/- and thus the total
works out to Rs.11,250/- p.m.
33. In the recent judgment of Apex court in Sarala Varma's
case it is held that, if the deceased is a bachelor 50% of the income
has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, 50% of the
income of the deceased is to be deducted for personal expenses i.e.,
Rs.5,625/- (50% of Rs.11,250/-). Thus, the annual loss of
dependency works out to Rs.67,500/- (Rs.5,625/-x12) and if we
multiply the said amount by the 17 multiplier applicable to the
case on hand, it works out to Rs.11,47,500/-, (67,500/-x17) to
which the petitioner is entitled to under the head Loss of
dependency.
34. 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.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and
ritual expenses. Though the petitioner has produced ambulance
20 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
charge of Rs.68,000/- as Ex.P.18, it has not been proved by
adducing the evidence of author of Ex.P.18.
35. The details of compensation I propose to award are as
under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 11,47,500-00
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. Cost incurred on account of 10,000-00
funeral and ritual expenses
Total 12,57,500-00
In all the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.12,57,500/-.
36. Interest:
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
21 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
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 interest at 9% cannot said to be
on the higher side. Accordingly, the petitioners in MVC No.340/15
and 341/15 are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
37. Liability:
While answering Issue No.1 & 2, it is held that the accident
has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the Borewell Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01-D-9257. As regards
the liability to be fixed on the Respondents, admittedly the
Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending Borewell bearing
Reg.No.KA-01-D-9257 and the Respondent No.1 is the owner of the
same. Hence, both respondents are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation to the petitioner. However, primary liability is
fixed on Respondent No.2- insurance company to satisfy the award
in MVC No.340/15 and 341/15. Hence, these Issues are answered
accordingly.
38. Point No.3 in MVC No.340/2015 and 341/2015: In
view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the
following: -
22 SCCH-1
MVC No.340/15 & 341/15
ORDER
MVC No.340/2015:
The petition is partly allowed with cost against Respondents.
The Petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,25,000/-.
Petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest to the Petitioner. However, the Respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner within
2 months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount so awarded, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in favour of the Petitioner and the balance amount 50% shall be invested in fixed deposit for a period of 5 years in the name of the Petitioner in any of the nationalized bank of the choice of the Petitioner. Interest on F.D. is payable on maturity.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- Draw an award accordingly.
MVC No.341/2015:
The petition is partly allowed with cost against Respondents.
The Petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,57,500/-.
Petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
23 SCCH-1 MVC No.340/15 & 341/15 The Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest to the Petitioner. However, the Respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount so awarded, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in favour of the Petitioner and the balance amount 50% shall be invested in fixed deposit for a period of 5 years in the name of the Petitioner in any of the nationalized bank of the choice of the Petitioner. Interest on F.D. is payable on maturity.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- Draw an award accordingly.
Original of the judgment shall be kept in MVC No.340/15 and a copy of the same be retained in MVC No.341/15.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, Computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of October 2015) (H.P.SANDESH,) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt.Sono Bai Gand @ Sanu Ganda @ Sanu Gound P.W.2 : Sri.Dhanu Gound @ Dhanu Ganda @ Dhanu Gond 24 SCCH-1 MVC No.340/15 & 341/15 Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : FIR Ex.P-2 : Mahazar Ex.P-3 : Sketch Ex.P-4 : Inquest Report Ex.P-5 : PM Report Ex.P-6 : Chargesheet Ex.P-7 : Death Certificate Ex.P-8 : Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Ex.P-9 : Notarized copy of Election ID Card
Ex.P-10 : Notarized copy of Election ID Card Ex.P-11 : Embalming Certificate Ex.P-12 : Cause of Death Certificate Ex.P-13 : Inquest Report Ex.P.14 : P.M.Report Ex.P.15 : Death Certificate Ex.P.16 : Notarized of Election ID Card Ex.P.17: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card Ex.P.18: Ambulance Bill for Rs.68,000/-
Ex.P.19: Embalming Certificate Ex.P.20: Cause of Death Certificate Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
R.W.1 : Sri. Venkatesh Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1: Notarized copy of R.C.Book Ex.R.2: Policy copy Ex.R.3: Notarized copy of Tax Receipt Ex.R.4: Notarized copy of FC Ex.R.5: Notarized copy of Permit 25 SCCH-1 MVC No.340/15 & 341/15 Ex.R.6: Notarized copy of National Permit Ex.R.7: Notarized copy of D.L. (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl., M.A .C.T. Bangalore ******