Bangalore District Court
Versus vs No.4(A) & 4(B) Are on 6 January, 2022
1 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
KABC020333492018
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ASCJ. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-7)
DATED THIS 6th DAY OF JANUARY - 2022
BEFORE: SRI.UMESH S. ATNURE,
B.Com.LL.B.(Spl)
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT7, Bengaluru.
M.V.C. No.7851/2018 & M.V.C.No.7852/2018
(M.V.C.No.7851/2018 IS THE MAIN CASE)
PARTIES IN M.V.C.No.7851/2018
1) Smt. Sasikala,
W/o Late P.Ramesh Babu,
Aged about 34 years.
2) Mast. Rohit.R,
S/o Late P. Ramesh Babu,
Aged about 11 years.
2 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
3) Mast. Roshan.R,
S/o Late P. Ramesh Babu,
Aged about 6 years.
4) Smt. Malara Kodi,
S/o Late Prabhakaran,
Aged about 60 years.
All residing at :
No.40, F Block,
Champion Reefs,
K.G.F. Town,
Kolar District - 563 117.
Petitioner's
VERSUS -
1) Sri.T.S.Sridhar Murthy,
S/o. N.Subbrayappa,
Shettigere Village,
Major by age,
R/at: No.104, Thimmapura,
Chikka Ankandahalli Post,
Bangarpet Taluk,
Kolar District.
2) Mr. Peeran S/o.Pyarejan,
Majory by age, R/at No.52,
Kyalanur Village & Post,
Kolar Taluk & District.
3) The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
3 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
Regional Office, 5th Floor,
Krishi Bhavana, Nrupathunga Road,
Hudson Circle, Bangaluru - 560 001.
4) Smt. K.Sangeetha,
W/o. Late Richo,
Aged about 34 years.
4(a) Mast. Suresh Kumar,
S/o. Late Richo,
Aged about 13 years.
4(b) Kuma. Sailaja.R,
D/o. Late Richo,
Aged about 11 years.
Respondents No.4(a) & 4(b) are
Minors R/by their mother and
natural guardian, the 4th petitioner.
Respondents No.4, 4(a) and 4(b) are
residing at : No.43, "D' Tile Block,
Champoin Reefs, K.G.F.,
Kolar District - 563 117.
4(c) Sri. Sampath.M,
S/o. Late Muniswamy,
Aged about 65 years.
4(d) Smt. Rani,
W/o. Late Sampath.M
Aged about 58 years.
Respondents No.4(c) and 4(d) are
4 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
residing at No.23, "D' Tile Block,
Champoin Reefs, K.G.F.,
Kolar District - 563 117.
5) M/s. IFFCOTokiyo Genral Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Customer Service Center,
Sri. Shanthi Towers, 5th Floor,
5th Main, NGEF Layout,
Kasthuri Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
Respondents
PARTIES IN M.V.C.No.7852/2018
Smt. Annamma Alias
Annammal,
W/o Late Jayaraj,
Aged about 60 years.
Residing at :
No.71, F Block,
Champion Reefs,
K.G.F. Town,
Kolar District - 563 117.
Petitioner's
VERSUS
1) Sri.T.S.Sridhar Murthy,
S/o. N.Subbrayappa,
Shettigere Village,
Major by age,
5 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
R/at: No.104, Thimmapura,
Chikka Ankandahalli Post,
Bangarpet Taluk,
Kolar District.
2) Mr. Peeran S/o.Pyarejan,
Major by age, R/at No.52,
Kyalanur Village & Post,
Kolar Taluk & District.
3) The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office, 5th Floor,
Krishi Bhavana, Nrupathunga Road,
Hudson Circle, Bangaluru - 560 001.
4) Smt. K.Sangeetha,
W/o. Late Richo,
Aged about 34 years.
4(a) Mast. Suresh Kumar,
S/o. Late Richo,
Aged about 13 years.
4(b) Kuma. Sailaja.R,
D/o. Late Richo,
Aged about 11 years.
Respondents No.4(a) & 4(b) are
Minors R/by their mother and
natural guardian, the 4th petitioner.
Respondents No.4, 4(a) and 4(b) are
residing at : No.43, "D' Tile Block,
Champoin Reefs, K.G.F.,
Kolar District - 563 117.
6 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
4(c) Sri. Sampath.M,
S/o. Late Muniswamy,
Aged about 65 years.
4(d) Smt. Rani,
W/o. Late Sampath.M
Aged about 58 years.
Respondents No.4(c) and 4(d) are
residing at No.23, "D' Tile Block,
Champoin Reefs, K.G.F.,
Kolar District - 563 117.
5) M/s. IFFCOTokiyo Genral Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Customer Service Center,
Sri. Shanthi Towers, 5th Floor,
5th Main, NGEF Layout,
Kasthuri Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
Respondents
===
Petitioners by Sri. N.M., Advocate
Respondent No.1 by Sri. N.T., Advocate
Respondent No.2 : Placed exparte
Respondent No.3 by Sri. K.R.S., Advocate.
Respondent No.4 : Placed exparte
Respondent No.5 by Sri. K.P., Advocate.
7 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
===
===
Date of filing of petitions on 31.12.2018.
===
:COMMONJUDGMENT:
1. These cases are arising out of same accident, as such by
order dated 20.12.2019 in M.V.C.No.7851/2018, the
M.V.C.No.7851/2018 is clubbed with M.V.C.No.7852/2018.
The M.V.C.No.7851/2018 is the main case.
2. The petitioners in M.V.C.No.7851/2018 have filed this claim
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1989
claiming compensation of Rs.90,00,000/ for the death of P.
Ramesh Babu in the Road Traffic Accident occurred on
26.09.2018.
3. The petitioners in M.V.C.No.7852/2018 have filed this claim
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1989
claiming compensation of Rs.90,00,000/ for the death of
8 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
Bharath Kumar.J in the Road Traffic Accident occurred on
26.09.2018
4. It is the case of the petitioners is that on 26.0.92018 in the
night, deceased P.Ramesh Babu going towards
Kempegowda International Air Port, Devanahalli from
K.G.F in Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.KA04
MA1302 along with his friends namely Bharath Kumar,
Babu and Richo and Richo was driving the said car. At
about 11.30 p.m., when they reached near Aniganahalli
gate, on BangarpetKolar Road, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar
District, the driver of said Tata Indica car drove the same
in high speed, in rash and negligent manner and at the
same time, the driver of Tata Sumo Car bearing
registration No.KA514030 came from the opposite
direction and the driver of Tata sumo car also driving the
same in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner
and both drivers lost control over their respective vehicles
9 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
and went towards wrong side and dashed their respective
vehicles in opposite direction. Due to the impact, both
P.Ramesh Babu and Bharath Kumar.J sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot.
5. The petitioners in M.V.C.No.7851/2018 contended that at
the time of accident, deceased P.Ramesh Babu was aged
about 41 years and he was ExService Man and he was in
the service of Indian Army in Madras Regiment for 18
years and he retired from the service in the year 2013 as
Havaldar. At the time of his death, he was getting pension
of Rs.22,400/ p.m. After retirement from Indian Army, he
was recruited as a Security Guard of CWCCFS by Direct
General Recruitment (DGC) through Snow Lion Security
Agency and earning Rs.34,000/p.m. and in all the deceased
was earning Rs.56,400/ p.m. Out of the said earnings, he
was maintaining his entire family and due to his death they
lost their earning member of the family.
10 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
6. The petitioner in M.V.C.No.7852/2018 contended that at
the time of accident, deceased BharathKumar.J was aged
about 39 years and he was in service of Indian Army and he
was Head Clerk at Army Supply Corps Center (ASC
Center), Ministry of Defence, Government of India and he
was deputed to serve at Jammu & Kashmir. He was
recruited to the Army in the year 2002 and and earning
Rs.55,000/p.m., and near future he would have earned
more than Rs.1,00,000/ p.m. Out of the said earnings, he
was maintaining the entire family and due to his death
they lost their earning member of the family.
7. Further the petitioners in both cases contended that this
accident is occurred due to the negligence of the drivers of
both Tata Indica car and Tata Sumo car. The respondent
No.1 is the R.C. owner and Respodent No.2 is the policy
holder and respondent No.3 is the insurer of Tata Sumo
Car. The respondent No.4 is the owner and respondent
11 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
No.5 is the insurer of the Tata Indica Car. Hence, all the
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to them. Hence they prayed to allow their
petitions.
8. In response to the notice issued by this Tribunal in both
cases the respondent No.1, 3 and 5 have appeared through
their respective counsel in both cases and filed their written
statements by taking similar contentions, whereas, the
respondent No.2 and 4 remained absent and placed exparte.
9. The respondent No.1 - owner of Tata Sumo Car bearing
registration No.KA514030, denied the entire contention of
the petitioners. Further contended that this accident was
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of Tata India car and there is no negligence on the part of
driver of Tata sumo car. Further contended that, his
vehicle Tata Sumo Car bearing registration No.KA514030
was insured with the respondent No.3 and as on the date of
12 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
accident, the policy issued to the said vehicle was in force
and driver of Tata Sumo car was holding valid and effective
driving licence and as such he is not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the respondent
No.1 prayed to dismiss the petitions.
10. The respondent No.3 - Insurer of Tata Sumo Car bearing
registration No.KA514030, denied the entire contention of
the petitioners. Further respondent No.3 admitted that,
they have insured the Tata sumo vehicle and their liability
is subjected to terms and conditions of the policy. Further
contended that, at the time of accident, the driver of Tata
sumo was not holding valid and effective driving licence and
the owner of Tata sumo car knowing fully well that the
driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence,
allowed the driver and breached the terms and conditions of
the policy as such they are not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioners. Further contended that,
13 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
there is no negligence on the part of driver of the Tata sumo
car, in fact, th driver of Tata Indica car bearing registration
No.KA04MA1302 was sole responsible for the cause of
this accident as he was driving the said Tata Indica car in
high speed and in rash and negligent manner and due to
which he dashed to the Tata Sumo car and on the other
hand, there is no negligence on the part of driver of Tata
Sumo car. As such they are not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioners and hence the respondent
No.3 prayed to dismiss the petitions.
11. The respondent No.5 - Insurer of Tata Indica Car bearing
registration No.KA04MA1032, denied the entire
contention of the petitioners. Further the respondent No.5
admitted that, they have insured the Tata Indica car and
their liability is subjected to terms and conditions of the
policy. Further contended that, the policy issued by them is
Private Car Liability only policy as such, the inmates of the
14 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
said Tata Indica Car are not covered under the above said
policy as the deceased was travelling in the said car, are not
liable for any compensation as such they are not liable to
pay any compensation to the petitioners. Further
contended that, the driver of Tata Sumo car bearing
registration No.KA514030 was driving the same without
knowledge of driving and without possessing valid and
effective driving licence as on the date of accident and
owner of the said car entrusted the same to the driver who
had no valid and effective driving licence and as such there
is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, they
are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners
and prayed to dismiss the petitions.
12. On the basis of above pleadings following Issues were
framed.
15 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
ISSUES IN M.V.C.No.7851/2018
(1) Whether the petitioners prove that they are
legal heirs of deceased P.Ramesh Babu S/o
Late Prabhakaran?
(2) Whether the petitioners prove that P.Ramesh
Babu sustained injuries due to rash and
negligent act of driver of Tata Indica Car
bearing registration No.KA04MA1302 on
26.09.2018 at about 1130 p.m., and
succumbed to injuries?
(3) Whether petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum?
From whom?
(4) What order or award?
16 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
ISSUES IN M.V.C.No.7852/2018
(1) Whether the petitioners prove that they are
legal heirs of deceased Bharath Kumar.J S/o
Late Jayaraj?
(2) Whether the petitioners prove that deceased
Bharath Kumar.J. sustained injuries due to
rash and negligent act of driver of Tata
Indica Car bearing registration No.KA04
MA1302 and succumbed to injuries?
(3) Whether petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum?
From whom?
(4) What order or award?
13. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the petitioner
No.1 in M.V.C.No.7851/2018 is examined as PW.1 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex. P.20 and Ex.P.31. The petitioner in
M.V.C.No.7852/2018 is examined herself as PW.2 and got
17 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
marked Ex.P.21 to P.30 and they have got examined
Lower Division Clerk of ASC Recruitment (South)
Bengaluru as PW3 and got marked Ex.P.32 to Ex.P.35 and
closed their side. Respondent No.5 got examined their
Officer as RW1 and got marked Ex.R.1 and closed their
side.
14. Heard the arguments of learned counsel of petitioners and
respondent No.3. The respondent No.5 filed his written
arguments and I have perused the same.
15. My findings to the above referred Issues are as under;
ISSUES IN M.V.C. No.7851/2018
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the
following.......
18 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
ISSUES IN M.V.C. No.7852/2018
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the,
following.......
:REASONS:
16. ISSUE No.1 IN BOTH CASES: The petitioners in
M.V.C.No.7851/2018 contended that they are the legal heirs
of deceased P. Ramesh Babu. In support of this contention,
the petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW1. In her
examinationin chief she deposed as per the contentions
taken by them. Further the petitioners have produced
Aadhaar card of deceased Ramesh Babu as per Ex.P.13,
Aadhaar cards of petitioners No.1 to 4 as per Ex.P.14 to
Ex.P.17. By perusing these documents, it clearly goes to
show that, the petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioners No.2 and
19 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
3 are minor sons and petitioner No.4 is mother of the
deceased P. Ramesh Babu and they are Class1 heirs and
legal heirs of deceased P.Ramesh Babu.
17. The respondents have denied the contentions of the
petitioners that they are legal heirs of the deceased
P.Ramesh Babu, but in support of this contention the
respondents have not adduced any rebuttable evidence.
Hence, it is clear that, the petitioners are legal heirs of the
deceased P.Ramesh Babu.
18. The petitioner in M.V.C.No.7852/2018 contended that she is
the legal heir of deceased Bharath Kumar.J. The petitioner
is the mother of deceased and she got examined herself as
PW1. In her examinationinchief she deposed as per the
contentions taken by her and she got marked Aadhaar card
of deceased as per Ex.P.26 and her Aadhaar card as per
Ex.P.27. By perusing these documents it clearly goes to
show that, the petitioner is the mother of the deceased
20 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
Bharath Kumar and to rebut the said contention of the
petitioner with reference to the legal heir, the respondents
have not adduced any rebuttable evidence. Hence, I am of
the considered view that, the petitioner is the only legal
heir of deceased Bharath Kumar.J. Hence, I answered
the issue No.1 in M.V.C.No.7851/2018 and M.V.C.
No.7852/2018 in the affirmative.
19. Issue No.2 in both the cases : In M.V.C.No.7851/2018,
the petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW1 and in her
examinationinchief she reiterated the petitioner
averments and got marked Ex.P.1 is FIR, Ex.P.2 is
Complaiint, Ex.P.3 is Sppot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is Spot
sketch, Ex.P.5 is IMV report, Ex.P.6 is Inquest report,
Ex.P.7 is Postmortem report and Ex.P.8 is Charge sheet.
Further the petitioner in M.V.C.No.7852/2018 got examined
herself as PW.2 and in her examinationinchief she has
reiterated the petition avements and got marked Ex.P.21 is
21 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
Inquest report and Ex.P.22 is postmortem report. By
perusing the documents produced by PW1 and PW2, it
clearly goes to show that, this accident was occurred due to
the negligence of drivers of both Tata Sumo car and Tata
Indica Car and both drivers are negligent in driving their
respective vehicles. Further in the crossexamination of
PW1 and PW2, they categorically denied that, this accident
was occurred only due to sole negligence on the part of
driver of Tata Indica car however, they deposed that both
vehicles drivers were negligent and due to their negligence,
this accident was occurred.
20. Further by perusing the Charge sheet marked as per
Ex.P.8, it clearly goes to show that, the Investigation
Officer after conducting investigation has come to the
conclusion that, due to the negligence on the part of drivers
of both Tata Sumo Car and Tata Indica Car this accident
was took place. Further the respondent No.1 is the owner
22 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
of Tata Sumo Car, contended that there is no negligence on
the part of the driver of Tata Sumo Car, but the driver of
Tata Indica Car is alone responsible for this accident.
However, in support of this contention the the respondent
No.1 has adduced any oral or documentary evidence.
21. Further, the respondent No.5 got examined their Asst.
Manager as RW1 and in his examinationinchief deposed
as per the contention taken by them. In his cross
examination, the RW1 denied that, this accident was
occurred due to the negligence on the part of drivers of both
vehicles and in order to escape from the liability of paying
compensation to the petitioners, he is deposing falsely.
From the oral and documentary evidence of both parties, it
clearly goes to show that, in this accident there is
negligence on the part of driver of Tata Sumo Car bearing
registration No.KA514030 and driver of Tata Indica Car
bearing registration No.KA04MA1302. Further by
23 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
perusing the Postmortem reports as per Ex.P.7 and
Ex.P.22, it clearly goes to show that, in this accident,
P.Ramesh Babu and Bharath Kumar.J sustained severe
injuries and due to the injuries sustained in the accident,
they succumbed at the spot. Hence, by looking entire oral
and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, I am of
the considered view that this accident was occurred due to
the negligence on the part of drivers of both vehicles and
both drivers are equally responsible for the cause of this
accident. Hence, I answered the issue No.2 in both the
cases in the Affirmative.
22. Issue No.3 in M.V.C.No.7851/2018 : The petitioners are
contended that as on the date of the accident the deceased
P.Ramesh Babu was retired from Indian Army and he was
getting monthly pension of Rs.22,400/p.m. and after
retirement he was working as Security Guard of CWCCFC
appointed by Direct General Recruitment(DGC) through
24 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
Snow Lion Security Agency and he was earning Rs.34,000/
p.m. So, in all Rs.56,400/ p.m. and they are depending on
the income of deceased.
23. In this case, the petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioners No.2
and 3 are minor sons and petitioner No.4 is mother of
deceased P.Ramesh Babu and they are the dependents of
the deceased and apart from the income of the deceased,
they have no other source of income to lead their life.
Hence, they are considered as dependents of the deceased.
24. Further the petitioners contended that, as on the date of
accident, the deceased was aged 41 years. In support of
this contention the petitioners relied on the postmortem
report as per Ex.P.7 and Aadhaar card as per Ex.P.13. By
perusing Ex.P.7 PM report, it shows that as on the date of
accident the deceased was aged 45 years. Further by
perusing Ex.P.13 Aadhaar card of deceased, it goes to
show that as on the date of accident, the deceased as aged
25 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
about 41 years. Hence, the age of deceased P.Ramesh Babu
was considered as 41 years at the time of accident.
25. So far as income of deceased P.Ramesh Babu is concerned,
the petitioners contended that, the deceased was retired
from Indian Army and he was getting monthly pension of
Rs.22,400/p.m. and after retirement he was working as
Security Guard and he was earning Rs.34,000/ p.m. So, in
all Rs.56,400/ p.m. In support of this contention, the
petitioners have produced Pension Certificate as per Ex.P.9,
Bank Pass Book as per Ex.P.12 and Identity card as per
Ex.P.10. By perusing Bank statement marked as per
Ex.P.12, it goes to show that, during the month of August
2018, the deceased received pension of Rs.17,505/ and
also in the month of September 2018 he received
Rs.17,505/. The petitioners have not produced any
acceptable evidence to show that deceased was working as
Security guard and earning Rs.34,000/p.m. In the bank
26 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
statement marked as per Ex.P.12, nowhere it is
forthcoming that, apart from the pension, the deceased was
also getting salary from his from his employer which was
employed him as Security Guard and in the absence of any
acceptable evidence with regard to the income of deceased
with regard to the same, by relying on the Pension
Certificate marked as per Ex.P.9 and Bank statement as
per Ex.P.12, the monthly income of the deceased is
considered at Rs.17,505/.
26. The petitioners are the dependents of deceased P.Ramesh
Babu. As per Sarala Varma case 1/4 th of the income is to be
deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. As
the income of the deceased is considered at Rs.17,505/ per
month, if 1/4th is deducted it comes to Rs.13,128/ per
month. As the deceased is aged above 40 years, 30% of the
monthly income is to be added towards future prospects by
relying on the authority reported in (2018)15 SCC 654 Hem
27 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
Raj Vs., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., it comes to Rs. 3,939/.
So, monthly income of deceased works out to Rs.17,067/
(Rs.13,128/ + Rs.3,939/). Further as per Sarala Varma
case multiplier 14 is applicable. Hence loss of dependency
comes to Rs.28,67,256/(Rs.17,067/ X 12 X 14). Further the
petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioners No.2 and 3 are
minor sons and petitioner No.4 is mother of deceased
P.Ramesh Babu, the petitioner No.1 lost her husband, the
petitioners No.2 and 3 lost their father and petitioner No.4
lost her son in the accident. As per the authority reported
in (2018)18 SCC 130 in between Magma General Insurance
Co. Ltd., Vs., Nanu Ram Chuchru Ram and others the
petitioner No.1 is entitled for spousal consortium of
Rs.40,000/, petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled parental
consortium of Rs.40,000/ each and petitioner No.4 is
entitled for filial consortium. Hence, the petitioners are
entitled for Rs.1,60,000/ under the head of consortium.
28 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
Rs.15,000/ is awarded towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/ is awarded towards funeral expenses. The
petitioners are entitled to compensation under the following
heads;
Towards loss of dependency Rs. 28,67,256.00
Towards consortium Rs. 1,60,000.00
Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000.00
Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00
Total Rs. 30,57,256.00
Hence the petitioners in M.V.C.No.7851/2018 are entitled
for just and reasonable compensation amount of
Rs.30,57,256/.
27. Issue No.3 in M.V.C.No.7852/2018: The petitioner
contended that as on the date of accident the deceased
Bharath Kumar.J was aged about 39 years and he was
serving in Indian Army and thereby getting salary of
Rs.55,000/ p.m. In support of this contention, the
petitioner got marked postmortem report as per Ex.P.22,
and Aadhaar card as per Ex.P.26. By perusing Ex.P.22 -
29 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
postmortem report, it goes to sow that as on the date of
accident, the deceased was aged 32 years. Further by
perusing Ex.P.26 Aadhaar card, it shows that, the
deceased was aged 39 years as on the date of accident.
However, by perusing service record particulars marked as
per Ex.P.35, the date of birth of deceased is shown as
03.10.1979. Hence, it is clear that, as on the date of
accident, the deceased was aged about 39 years. Hence the
age of the deceased Bharath Kumar.J is considered as 39
years as on the date of accident.
28. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the
petitioner contended that, as on the date of accident, the
deceased was serving in Indian Army and getting salary of
Rs.55,000/ p.m. In this regard, the petitioner got examined
the Lower Division Clerk of ASC Records (South),
Bengaluru as PW3 and she got marked authorization letter
as per Ex.P.32, her identity card as per Ex.P.33 and pay
30 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
particulars of deceased Bharath Kumar as per Ex.P.34.
The Employment record of deceased as per Ex.P.33 and
Ex.P.34 and it goes to show that during the month of
September 2017 the salary of deceased was Rs.72,568/.
Further in the crossexamination of PW3, she clearly
deposed that, the pay particulars after deducting of other
deductions the deceased was getting net salary of
Rs.55,821/ This fact is clear from Ex.P.34, wherein after
deductions, the deceased was getting net salary of
Rs.55,821/ by perusing Ex.P.34, it is clear that, the
deceased was getting gross salary of Rs.72,568/. Hence, it
is clear that the deceased was an Income Tax Payee and
from his salary, the deductions are made towards Income
Tax. In order to adjudicate the income of deceased, out of
the gross salary, the income tax which the deceased is liable
to pay is to be deducted and remaining amount is to be
considered as Income.
31 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
29. In this context, by perusing Ex.P.34, it is clear that the
gross salary of deceased is Rs.72,568/ Out of which, the
Professional Tax of Rs.200/ pm is to be deducted.
Thereafter, as per the New Slab, the Income Tax has to be
calculated. As per the New Slab, the Income Tax of
deceased will come to Rs.55,622, the details of which are as
under:
Up to Rs.2,50,000/ - - - Nil
From Rs.2,50,000/to 5,00,000/...Rs.2,50,000/ 5%..Rs.12,500/
From Rs.5,00,000/to 7,50,000/.. Rs.2,50,00010%..Rs.25,000/
From Rs.7,50,000/to 8,70,816/ ..Rs.1,20,81615%..Rs.18,122/
So, in all the deceased has to pay income Tax of Rs.55,622/
The monthly income of the deceased is considered at
Rs.72,568/ and yearly income comes to Rs.8,70,816/. Out
of which, the Income Tax of Rs.55,622/ is to be deducted
and then it will comes to Rs.8,15,194/ per annum.
32 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
30. In this case, the petitioner is mother of deceased and as per
the petition averments, it goes to show that, the deceased
was a bachelor. As per Sarala Varma case half of the
income of the deducted towards personal expenses of the
deceased. The annual income of the deceased is considered
at Rs.8,15,194/ and monthly income comes to
Rs.67,932.83/, which rounded off to Rs.67,933/ , if 50% is
deducted it comes to Rs.33,966.50/ by rounded off to
Rs.33,967/ per month. Further as per Sarala Varma case
multiplier 15 is applicable. As the deceased is aged below
40 years and having permanent job, he is entitled for 50%
of future prospects by relying on the authority reported in
(2018)15 SCC 654 Hem Raj Vs., Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., it comes to Rs. 16,983.50/ which can be rounded off to
Rs.16,984/. So, monthly income of deceased works out to
Rs.50,951/ (Rs.33,967/ + Rs.16,984/). Further as per
Sarala Varma case multiplier 15 is applicable. Hence loss
33 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
of dependency comes to Rs.91,71,180/(Rs.50,951/ X 12 X
15). Further the petitioner is the mother of deceased
Bharath Kumar.J, the Petitioner No.1 lost her son. As per
the authority reported in (2018)18 SCC 130 in between
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs., Nanu Ram
Chuchru Ram and others the petitioner is entitled for fillial
consortium of Rs.40,000/. Hence the petitioner is entitled
for Rs.40,000/ under the head of consortium. Rs.15,000/ is
awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/ is awarded
towards funeral expenses. The petitioner is entitled for
compensation under the following heads;
Towards loss of dependency Rs. 91,71,180.00
Towards consortium Rs. 40,000.00
Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000.00
Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00
Total Rs. 92,41,180.00
Hence the petitioner in M.V.C.No.7852/2020 is entitled for
just and reasonable compensation amount of
Rs.92,41,180/.
34 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
31. While answering the issue No.2 this Tribunal come to the
conclusion that, this accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the drivers of both vehicles i.e. Tata
Sumo Car bearing registration No.KA514030 and Tata
Indica Car bearing registration No.KA04MA1302 and both
drivers are equally responsible for the cause of this accident.
As such the respondent No.1R.C.owner, respondent No.2
Policy holder and respondent No.3insurer of Tata Sumo Car
bearing registration No.KA514030 are jointly and severally
liable to pay 50% out of total compensation amount to the
petitioners and respondent No.4 being owner and respondent
No.5 being insurer of Tata Indica Car bearing registration
No.KA04MA1302 are liable to pay remaining 50%
compensation amount to the petitioner.
32. Whereas, the respondent No.5 - Insurer of the Tata Indica
car bearing registration No.KA04MA1302 has specifically
contended that, as on the date of accident, the said car was
35 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
insured by them, but the said policy was the liability only
policy and it does not cover the risk of the inmates of said car
as the deceased persons are the inmates of said car and as
such they are not liable to pay any compensation to the
petitioners. In support of this contention, the respondent
No.5 has examined their Official as RW1. In examinationin
chief, he deposed as per the contentions taken by them and
he got marked policy copy as per Ex.R.1. By perusing the
policy copy, it clearly goes to show that the policy issued to
the Indica Car bearing registration No.KA04MA1302 was
the Liability only policy and by perusing premium collected
by the respondent No.5, it goes to show that, no premium is
collected towards occupants of the car and only under this,
third party liability policy was issued by the respondent
No.5. The policy copy produced by respondent No.5 as per
Ex.R.1 clearly goes to show that, as the policy issued to the
said Indica car is liability policy only and the deceased were
36 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
inmates of said car and they are not the third party and as
such the Insurance Company i.e. the respondent No.5 is not
liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
33. That apart, the respondent No.5 has relied on the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA
No.5096 of 2010 C/W MFA No.5086/2010, 5087/2010,
5088/2010 and 5089/2010 in between M/s National
Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Sudhakar @ Sudhakar Reddy and
also relied on another authority reported iin AIR 2013 SC
473 in between the National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s
Balakrishna & Another. I have perused these two
authorities which are relied by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.5 and in the above said authorities, it is held
that, the policy issued to the offending vehicle is the liability
only policy, then it does not cover the risk of inmates of the
vehicle and also held that, the Insurance Company is not
liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. In this
37 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
present cases on hand also, the policy issued to the Tata
Indica Car bearing registration No.KA04MA1302 is the
Liability only policy and the deceased were inmates of said
car and as such the respondent No.5 is not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioners. Further the respondent
No.4 being owner of said Indica car is alone liable to pay
remaining 50% compensation amount to the petitioners.
34. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioners by
relying on the authority reported in 2020 ACJ 2560
contended that, even though the policy issued by the
respondent No.5 to the Tata Indica Car bearing registration
No.KA04MA1302 is liability only policy, the petitioners are
third parties to this accident. Hence, the respondent No.5 is
liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. I have perused
the authority relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, whereas the facts of the present cases and the
facts stated in the said authority are entirely different and
38 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
with due respect to above said authority, I am of the
considered view that the authority, which is relied by the
learned counsel for petitioners is not applicable to the
present cases on hand. Hence, I am of the considered view
that, respondent No.1R.C.owner, respondent No.2Policy
holder and respondent No.3insurer of Tata Sumo Car
bearing registration No.KA514030 are jointly and severally
liable to pay 50% out of total compensation amount to the
petitioners and respondent No.4 being owner of Tata Indica
Car bearing registration No.KA04MA1302 are liable to pay
remaining 50% compensation amount to the petitioner with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of petition.
Hence I answered the Issue No.3 in both cases partly
in the Affirmative.
35. Issue No.4 in both cases : For the aboves stated reasons,
I proceed to pass the following:
39 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
:ORDER:
Claim petitions filed by the petitioners U/Sec 166 of M.V. Act are partly allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/ each.
Petitioners in M.V.C.No.7851/2018 are awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs.30,57,256/ (Rupees Thirty Lakhs, Fifty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Six Only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition to till the date of depositing of the compensation amount in the Court.
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7852/2018 is awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs.92,41,180/ (Rupees Ninety Two Lakhs, Forty One Thousand, One Hundred and Eighty only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition to till the date of depositing of the compensation amount in the court. 40 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7 The respondent No.3 being Insurer of Tata Sumo Car bearing registration No.KA514030 is liable to pay 50% out of total compensation amount to the petitioners.
The petition against the respondent No.5 Insurer of Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.KA04MA1302 is hereby dismissed, whereas, the respondent No.4 being owner alone is liable to pay remaining 50% out of total compensation amount to the petitioners.
The respondent No.3 Insurer of Tata Sumo Car bearing registration No.KA514030 and respondent No.4 - owner of Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.KA04MA1302 are hereby directed to deposit their respective awarded compensation amount to the petitioners in the Court within 2 months from the date of this judgment.
41 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7 Draw award accordingly.
:APPORTIONMENT:
In M.V.C.No.7851/2018 out of the compensation amount, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for 40%, petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled for 15% each and the petitioner No.4 is entitled for 20%.
On deposit of compensation amount in M.V.C. No.7851/2018 awarded to petitioner No.1 and 4 shall deposit 50% of their respective compensation amount in any of the Nationalized Banks as F.D. for a period of 2 years. Further the compensation amount awarded to minor petitioners No.2 & 3 shall be kept in any Nationalized banks as per the choice of their guardian/mother till they attain the age of majority.
After expiry of period of fixed deposit the Bank Authorities are at liberty to release the amount shown in the F.D. to the concerned depositor in accordance 42 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018. SCCH 7 with rules and regulations of the bank after proper identification of the depositor.
Remaining 50% amount is to be paid to petitioner No.1 and 4 through EPayment after due identification as per rules and after verifying the stay order from the Hon'ble Appellate Court.
On deposit of compensation amount in M.V.C. No.7852/2018 petitioner shall deposit 50% of her compensation amount in any of the Nationalized Banks as F.D. for a period of 2 years.
After expiry of period of fixed deposit the Bank Authorities are at liberty to release the amount shown in the F.D. to the concerned depositor in accordance with rules and regulations of the bank after proper identification of the depositor.
Remaining 50% amount is to be paid to petitioner through EPayment after due identification 43 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018. SCCH 7 as per rules and after verifying the stay order from the Hon'ble Appellate Court.
Since common judgment is passed in these cases original shall be kept in M.V.C.No.7851/2018 and copy of the same shall be kept in another clubbed case. (Dictated to the stenographer, typed by her, script corrected, signed and then pronounced in the open court by me on this the 6th DAY OF JANUARY2022).
(Umesh S.Atnure) IX ASCJ & ACMM, Court of Small causes, Member MACT, Bengaluru.
: ANNEXURE :
List of exhibited documents marked for petitioners in both the cases.
PW.1 : Smt. Sasikala W/o. Late P.Ramesh Babu PW.2 : Smt. Annamma alias Annammal PW..3 : Ashwini.M
List of exhibited documents marked for Petitioner/s in both the cases.
Ex.P.1 : FIR
44 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018.
SCCH 7
Ex.P.2 : Complaint
Ex.P.3 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4 : Sketch
Ex.P.5 : IMV report
Ex.P.6 : Inquest report along with statement of
witnesses (2 in Nos.)
Ex.P.7 : Postmortem Report
Ex.P.8 : Charge Sheet
Ex.P.9 : Notarized copy of Pension certificate of
Ramesh Babu.P
Ex.P.10 : Notarized copy of Job Identity card of Ramesh Babu.P Ex.P.11 : Notarized copy of PAN card of Ramesh Babu.P Ex.P.12 : True copy of Bank Statements (2 in Nos.) Ex.P.13 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of Ramesh Babu.P Ex.P.14 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of Sasikala Ex.P.15 : Notarized copy of Ration Card of Rohit.R Ex.P.16 : Notarized copy of Adhaar Card of Roshan.R Ex.P.17 : Notarized copy of Adhaar Card of Malara Kodi Ex.P.18 : Notarized copy of Election Identity Card of Ramesh Babu.P 45 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018. SCCH 7 Ex.P.19 : Notarized copy of Election Identity Card of Sasikala Ex.P.20 : Notarized copy of Election Identity Card of Malara Kodi Ex.P.21 : Inquest report along with statement of witnesses (2 in Nos.) Ex.P.22 : P.M. report Ex.P.23 : Copy of Salary statements (6 in Nos.) Ex.P.24 : True copy of Bank Statement Ex.P.25 : Notarized copy of PAN card of Bharath Kumar.J Ex.P.26 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of Bharathi Kumar.J Ex.P.27 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of Annamma Ex.P.28 : Notarized copy of Election Identity Card of Bharath Kumar.J Ex.P.29 : Notarized copy of Ex.P.30 : Notarized copy of Election Identity Card of Annamma Ex.P.31 : True copy of Bank Statement Ex.P.32 : Authorization letter Ex.P.33 : Office ID Card of Bharath Kumar.J Ex.P.34 : Salary letter of Bharath Kumar.J Ex.P.35 : Employment record 46 M.V.C.No.7851/2018 & 7852/2018. SCCH 7 List of witnesses examined for the Respondent/s in both the cases:
RW.1 : S. Narendran List of exhibited documents marked for the Respondent/s in both the cases:
Ex.R.1 : Copy of Policy
(Umesh S.Atnure)
IX ASCJ & ACMM,
Court of Small causes,
Member MACT, Bengaluru.