Bangalore District Court
Is Put To Strict Proof Of Either Rashness ... vs Has To Intimate The Accident ... on 22 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 20th day of June, 2015.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B. (Spl.), L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.7050/2012
1. Narayanaswamy ..... PETITIONERS
S/o Late Munichannappa,
Aged about 57 years.
2. Smt.Nagamma @ Narayanamma
W/o Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 46 years.
3. Nanjamma
D/o Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 22 years.
4.Smt.Mallamma
W/o Late.Munichannappa,
Aged about 70 years.
All are residing at :
No.21, Beeranahalli Village
Shivanapura Post, Nandagudi
Hobli, Hoskote Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
(By Sri. M.G.Ragahvendra, Adv,.)
V/s
1. Royal Sundaram Alliance ..... RESPONDENTS
Insurance Co.Ltd,
1st Floor, Mangala Punarbhava,
Next to Brigade Towers,
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012
2
Brigade Road,
Bangalore.
Policy No.VPV0092610000100.
Volvo Sleeper Bus
Bearing No.KA-01-AA-8571
2. M/s Blue Hill Logistics Pvt. Ltd
#171, 2nd Floor, Neelagir Building,
Brigade Road,
Bangalore.
3. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
NO.39, 2nd Floor, S.V.R. Complex,
Hosur Main Road, Madiwala,
Bangalore.
4. Mr.C.Shivakumar
S/o Chandran,
No.4, K.P.N. Extension,
Bangalore.
(R1- By Sri.Ravi. S. Samprathi,
Adv.,)
(R2- Exparte.)
(R3- By Smt. Geetha Raj, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioners No. 1 to 4 have filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 praying to award compensation of Rupees 10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
2. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case are as follows;
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012
3
a) Petitioners No.1 and 2 are the parents, Petitioner No.3
is the sister and Petitioner No.4 is the grand mother of deceased B.N.Ravi Kumar. On 21.06.2012 at about 3.00 a.m., deceased was proceeding in a Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01- AA-5871 driven by driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed at Gowrapettai village, Kamalapura Post, Pernambut via Gudiyatam Taluk, when he reached near Thamal west by pass road at that, time the driver of the said Bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed behind a lorry which was going in the same way and same direction. Due to the impact of the accident, the cleaner of the said Bus B.N.Ravi Kumar sustained grievous injuries to all over the body. Due to which the injured B.N.Ravi Kumar succumbed to the injuries on the same spot.
b) At the time of accident, deceased was hale and healthy and was working as a cleaner in the said offending Bus under 2nd Respondent and drawing a monthly salary of Rupees 3,000/- per month, deceased only a bread winner in his family and he used to spent a much part of his income to the welfare of his family. Due to the accident and accidental injuries Petitioners and her family put to great financial loss and mental agony.
c) The accident occurred solely due to the driving of the driver of the said offending vehicle Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571 hence the Balachettychatram Police have register a case against the driver of the Bus under Section 279, 338 and 304 A of IPC and 1st Respondent being the insurer of the above said offending vehicle and the second Respondent being the owner of the vehicle hence they are jointly (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 4 and severally liable to ay the compensation to the Petitioners. Hence, this Petition.
3. ==Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte on 19.02.2013.
4. ==In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 06.03.2014 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
5. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
a) The petition is not maintainable either under law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine,
b) It seeks protection under section 147 and 149 of MV Act 1988.
c) As per section 134 (c) of MV Act 1988, it is mandatory duty of the insured-Respondent No.2, to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of the injured and the name of the driver and particulars of driving licence. But, the insured/Respondent No.2 has not complied with statutory demand. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation and the case is liable to be dismissed against it for non-compliance of the statutory demand.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 5 d) As per section 158(6) of M.V.Act, 1988, it is mandatory
duty of the concerned police station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the information, but, the Baluchetty Police Station have failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand.
e) The driver of the Bus was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving licence. The Respondent No.2 has handed over the possession of the vehicle to the said driver and therefore, has contravened the proviso of the M.V.Act and the rules framed there under have committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, under the contract of insurance it is not obligated to indemnify the 2nd Respondent and the petition as against it may kindly be dismissed.
f) It has issued a policy of insurance in favour of 2nd Respondent in respect of Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA- 8571, the liability of its company if any is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy and subject to valid and effective driving licence of the driver in question.
g) As per the petition averments the deceased was traveling as cleaner in the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA- 8571 as cleaner in the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA- 8571 and the policy issued in favour of 2nd Respondent in respect of the said Bus does not cover the risk of cleaner and no premium is collected to cover such risk. As such, the 1st Respondent is not liable to indemnify the 2nd Respondent in respect of death of the (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 6 deceased and the petition as against the 1st Respondent may kindly be dismissed.
h) As per condition No.1 of the policy, the insured/2nd Respondent have to intimate the accident immediately on its occurrence to insurer and produce the required documents and to co-operate with the insurer in defending the claim effectively. In this case, the insurer has not reported the accident nor submitted the required documents and not co-operating with the insurer and violated condition No.1 of the policy, which is a condition precedent to liability. As such the policy has become null and void and the contract of insurance entered between the insurers and insured cannot be enforceable.
i) On the date of the accident, the Bus was being driven in a reasonable speed and careful manner and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus. The Petitioner is put to strict proof of either rashness or negligence n the part of the driver of Bus.
j) The accident did not take place in the manner alleged in column No.22 of the petition and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.
k) The accident did not take place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of Bus and as such the petition as against it be rejected for want of negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus.
l) It reserves its right to file additional written statement in the changed circumstances of law and facts of the case.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012
7
m) It seeks permission of this Hon'ble Court to contest
the matter on all the grounds available to the insured under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, if the owner./alleged insured fail to contest the claim in collusion with the Petitioners.
n) The amount of compensation claimed Rupees 10,00,000/- is highly excessive, exaggerated, arbitrary and speculative when compared to comparable cases, which have been disposed off.
o) The Petitioner may be directed to confirm that, no other petition if filed before this MACT or before any other MACT, on the same cause of action. The Petitioner may be directed to given an undertaking to this Hon'ble Court, that, no such petition is filed on the same cause of action, except this petition.
p) If this Hon'ble Court were to award compensation, the rate of interest may be restricted to 4% p.a only. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. The Respondent No.3 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
a) The petition is not maintainable either under law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine,
b) It seeks protection under section 147 and 149 of MV Act 1988. and the petition is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties.
c) As per section 134 (c) of MV Act 1988, it is mandatory duty of the insured-Respondent No.4, to furnish the particulars of (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 8 policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of the injured and the name of the driver and particulars of driving licence. But, the insured/Respondent No.4 has not complied with statutory demand. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation and the case is liable to be dismissed against it for non-compliance of the statutory demand.
d) As per section 158(6) of M.V.Act, 1988, it is mandatory duty of the concerned police station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the information, but, the Baluchetti Chatram Police Station have failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand.
e) It admits the issuances of policy of insurance in favour of the 4th Respondent in respect of Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-B-4811, the liability of it's company if any is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy and subject to valid and effective driving licence of the rider in question, and subject to confirmation of 64VB of Insurance Act, 1938. The Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-B-4811 was plied without valid permit and fitness certificate as such it is not liable for payment of compensation.
f) The driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01- B-4811, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving licence. The Respondent No.4 has therefore, has contravened the proviso of the M.V.Act 1988 and the rules framed there under have committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012
9
g) As per condition No.1 of the policy, the insured/4th
Respondent has to intimate the accident immediately on its occurrence to insurer by furnishing the required documents and expected to co-operate with the insurer in defending the claim effectively. But,, in the present claim, the insured/Respondent No.4 has not reported the accident vitiating the contract of insurance, hence the claim against it cannot be enforced. Without prejudice to the foregoing contentions, the 3rd Respondent begs to traverse the petition averments in the ensuing paragraphs.
i) On 21.06.2012 at about 3.00 p.m., deceased was proceeding in a Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA- 8571, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed at Gowrapettai village, Kamapuram Post, Pernambut via Gudiyatam Taluk, when he reach near Thamal west by pass road at that, time, the driver of the said Bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed behind lorry which was going in the same way and same direction due to the impact of the accident cleaner of the said Bus B.N.Ravi Kumar sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to the injuries sustained on the spot is a matter of record and the same is admitted.
j) at the time of accident, deceased was hale and healthy and was working as Cleaner in the said offending Bus under 2nd Respondent and drawing monthly salary of Rupees 7,000/- per month and the deceased was the only bread winner of the family and he used to spent a much part of his income to the welfare of his family due to the accident and accidental injuries Petitioners are put to great financial loss and mental agony.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012
10
k) The accident occurred due to the driving of the said
offending vehicle Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA- 8571 hence the Baluchettychatram Police have registered a case against the driver of the said Bus is a matter of record. The jurisdictional Police on thorough investigation had filed charge sheet against the driver of the Private Bus as the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of Bus.
l) It reserves its right to file additional written statement in the changed circumstances of law and facts of the case.
m) It seeks permission of this Hon'ble Court to contest the matter on all the grounds available to the insured under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, if the owner./alleged insured fail to contest the claim in collusion with the Petitioners.
n) The amount of compensation claimed Rupees 10,00,000/- is highly excessive, exaggerated, arbitrary and speculative when compared to comparable cases, which have been disposed off. It is apparent from the claim petition and as well the Crime records that, the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the Private Bus insured with the 1st Respondent and not due to the insured vehicle as such the claim petition against it does not survive.
o) The Petitioner may be directed to confirm that, no other petition if filed before this MACT or before any other MACT, on the same cause of action. The Petitioner may be directed to given an undertaking to this Hon'ble Court, that, no such petition is filed on the same cause of action, except this petition. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 11
7. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the following Issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the dependents or legal representatives of deceased Sri. B.N.Ravi @ RaviKumar?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that, on the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571 by its driver and Sri. B.N.Ravi @ Ravikumar died due to the injuries sustained in the accident?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What Order?
8. In order to prove their case, the Petitioners have examined the Petitioner No.1 as P.W.1 by filing the affidavit as his examination-in-chief and have placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. On the other hand, the Respondents =====No.1 and 2 have not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
9. Heard the arguments.
10. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative,
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012
12
The Petitioners are
entitled for total
compensation of Rupees
4,53,300/- with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of
petitioner till payment,
from the Respondent
No.1.
Issue No.4 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
11. ISSUE NO.1 :- On perusal of the cause title of the petition, it appears that, the Petitioner No.1 is a father, the Petitioner No.2 is a mother, Petitioner No.3 is a Sister and the Petitioner No.4 is a grand mother of the deceased B.N.Ravi @ Ravikumar. The same has also been stated by the Petitioners in the petition. The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner No.1 has not stated anything about their relationship with deceased. But, they have produced Ex.P.8 Ration Card, they have also produced Ex.P.1 FIR in Tamil Language, Ex.P.1(a) its English Translation, Ex.P.2 Death Report in Tamil Language, Ex.P.2(a) its English Translation, Ex.P.5 Inquest in Tamil Language, Ex.P.5(a) its English Translation, Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet in Tamil Language, Ex.P.6(a) its English Translation and Ex.P.7 List of Witness in Tamil Language and Ex.P.7 (a) its English Translation. On perusal of the contents of the said material documents as well as the cause title of the petition averments, it clearly goes to show that, deceased B.N.Ravi @ Ravikumar is a unmarried son of the Petitioner No.1 and 2, mother of Petitioner No.3 and the grand son of Petitioner No.4, who died in the road traffic accident, it was taken place on 21.06.2012 at 3.00 A.M., (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 13 at Gowrapetti Village, Kamalapuram Post, Pernambut via Gudiyatam Taluk, when he was proceeding in a Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571, which was owned by the Respondent No.2, as a Attender -Cleaner. The relationship of the Petitioners of the deceased is disputed by the Respondent No.1 while cross-examining the P.W.1. Further the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, he has two sons and deceased B.N.Ravi @ Ravikumar is younger son and the name of the elder son is Channakeshava and he is doing Coolie work and he is also doing coolie work. He has further clearly stated that, his deceased son was working in Private Bus Office and he came to know that, the Bus dashed to Lorry and as such, the accident was taken place and one of the passenger who was in the Bus informed him about the accident through phone at 6.00 A.M. From this, it is made crystal clear that, the said deceased died due to the accidental injuries in the spot itself and the Petitioners are the legal representatives of the said deceased. But, based on the same, it cannot be said that, all the Petitioners were dependents of the said deceased, as admittedly, the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident and the Petitioner No.1 is an father and the Petitioner No.3 is a sister and the Petitioner No.4 is a grand mother of the said deceased, who cannot be considered as dependents of the said deceased. Based on the same, it can be safely held that, though the Petitioners are legal representatives of the deceased, only the Petitioner No.2, who is a mother of the deceased alone was a dependent of the said deceased at the time of accident. Accordingly, without much discussion, I answered Issue No. 1 Partly in the Affirmative.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 14
12. ISSUE NO.2 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner No.1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that, on 21.06.2012 at about 3.00 a.m., his son B.N.Ravi @ Ravikumar was proceeding in a Private Bus (Ashwini Travels) bearing Registration No.KA-01- AA-5871 and the said Bus was going at Gowrapettai Village, Kamalapura Post, Pernambut via Gudiyatam Taluk, when he reached near Thamal west by pass road within the limits of Baluchettychatram Police Station, at that time, the driver of the said Bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the hind portion of the Lorry which belongs to Respondent No.4, which insured with Respondent No.3, which was going in the same way and same direction. He has further stated that, due to the impact of the accident, his son B.N.Ravi @ Ravikumar was sustained severe injuries to all over the body and he succumbed to the injuries on the same spot itself. He has further stated that, the accident was solely due to the driving of the driver of the Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571 and hence, the Balachettychatram Police have register a case under Section 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC in their crime No.384/2012.
13. No doubt, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, he has not seen the accident. But, he has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that, at the time of accident, his deceased son B.N.Ravi @ Ravikumar was proceeding in ha Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571 and the said Bus dashed to the Lorry and due to the said impact, his son had sustained severe injuries to all over the body and succumbed to the injuries in the spot itself. From this, it is made crystal clear that, in the road traffic accident, the Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571 as well as Lorry were used. More (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 15 so, to corroborate the oral version of P.W.1, the Petitioners have produced Ex.P.1 FIR in Tamil Language, Ex.P.1(a) its English Translation, Ex.P.2 Death Report in Tamil Language, Ex.P.2(a) its English Translation, Ex.P.3 Spot Hand Sketch in Tamil Language, Ex.P.3(a) Its English Translation, Ex.P.4 Spot Mahazar in Tamil Language, Ex.P.4(a) Its English Translation, Ex.P.5 Inquest in Tamil Language, Ex.P.5(a) its English Translation, Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet in Tamil Language, Ex.P.6(a) its English Translation and Ex.P.7 List of Witness in Tamil Language and Ex.P.7 (a) its English Translation which clearly disclosed about the very used of the Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571 as well as the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-B-4811 in the road traffic accident, i.e., when the deceased B.N.Ravi @ Ravikumar was traveling in the said Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA- 01-AA-8571 as Attender-Cleaner, the driver of the said Bus dashed to the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-B-4811, which was standing on the same direction, at Bangalore to Chennai GWT Road at Thamal West By pass Road and due to the said impact, the said deceased had severe grievous injuries all over his body and succumbed to the said accidental injuries in the spot itself. It is also clear from the contents of the said documents, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Baluchettichathiram Police Station, have registered a criminal case as against the driver of the Private Bus for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC and has also filed a charge sheet as against him for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. It is clearly mentioned in the charge sheet that, the deceased died in the accidental injuries, when he was traveling in the said Private Bus as a Attender-Cleaner, which hit back to the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-B-4811. From this, it is made crystal clear (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 16 that, the Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571 as well as Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-B-4811 were used in the road traffic accident, wherein, the deceased B.N.Ravi @ Ravikumar succumbed to the injuries in the spot itself. In this regard, the P.W.1 has also clearly stated in his cross-examination that, he came to know that, the Bus dashed to Lorry and as such the accident was taken place and one of the passenger who was in the said Bus informed him about the accident through phone at 6.00 A.M. and himself and his son in law went to the accidental spot and by that time, the body of his deceased son was shifted to the Hospital and at the time of accident, his deceased son was working in the said Bus.
14. Under the above facts and circumstances, as well as reasons given, this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that, in the road traffic accident, the Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571 as well as Lorry bearing Registration No.KA- 01-B-4811 were used in the road traffic accident, wherein, deceased B.N.Ravi @ Ravikumar succumbed to the injuries in the spot itself. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
15. ISSUE NO.3 :- The P.W.1 has stated that, at the time of accident, his son was hale and healthy and was working as Office Attender and he was tenderin ghis work to the Office of the 2nd Respondent and he was drawing a salary of Rupees 10,000/- per month. He has further stated that, his son was only a bread winner in their family and he used to spent a much part of his income to the welfare of their family and due to the accident and accidental injuries, the Petitioners and his family put to great financial loss and mental agony. The (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 17 Petitioners have produced Ex.P.8 Ration Card, which disclosed that, as on 03.06.2009, deceased B.N.Ravi @ Ravikumar was aged 18 years. The date of accident is on 21.06.2012. From this, it appears that, at the time of accident, the deceased was 22 years old. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as 22 years at the time of accident.
16. It is clear from the above said Police and Medical documents that, at the time of accident, the said deceased was a bachelor. In this regard, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, at the time of accident, his deceased son was unmarried. From this, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the deceased was a bachelor.
17. Except the oral version of P.W.1, the Petitioners have not produced any authenticated documents to show that, at the time of accident, the deceased was drawing a salary of Rupees 10,000/- per month. Based on the said Police documents, this Tribunal is already observed that, at the time of accident, the deceased was Attender-Cleaner in the said Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571 at the time of accident. From this, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the deceased was working as Attender-Cleaner in the Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571, which itself caused the accident by its driver, i.e., hit to the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-B-4811. Even the Petitioners have not examined the employer of the deceased to consider the income of the deceased at the time of accident. Though there is no acceptable material evidence to consider the income of the deceased, as, now a days even a Coolie would get Rupees 3,300/- p.m., this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to consider the notional (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 18 income of the deceased is of Rupees 3,300/- per month at the time of accident, which cannot be appeared an exaggeration. Hence, the income of the deceased of Rupees 3,300/- per month at the time of accident.
18. There is no dispute the relationship of the Petitioners with deceased. As this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the Petitioner No.1 is father, Petitioner No.2 is a mother, Petitioner No.3 is a sister and Petitioner No.4 is grand mother of the said deceased B.N.Ravi @ Ravikumar S/o Narayanaswamy. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 22 years old. The Petitioners being a nearest relatives of the deceased have lost the deceased, under his tender age. As the deceased was working as Attender-Cleaner in the said Private Bus, which clearly disclosed that, the deceased was contributing his earnings he is welfare of the family of the Petitioners. Due to the death of the deceased, the Petitioners could have definitely lost the earning member. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation inview of both of the said deceased.
As per the Schedule - II annexed to M.V. Act 1988, 1/3rd income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. As this Tribunal has already considered the income of the deceased is Rupees 3,300/- P.M. Therefore, the loss of dependency come to Rupees 2,200/- (Rs.3,300/- (-) Rs.1,100/-).
55. As this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, at the time of accident, the age of the deceased B.N. Ravi @ Ravikumar s/o Narayanaswamy was 22 years. The multiplier under Schedule - II applicable to the age, i.e., 22 years of (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 19 deceased is 17. Therefore, the loss of dependency for monthly income of Rupees 2,200/- by applying multiplier by 17 come to Rupees 4,48,800/- (Rupees 2,200/- X 12 X 17). Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rupees 4,48,800/- towards loss of dependency.
56. As per the Schedule - II, the Petitioners are entitled for Rupees 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rupees 2,500/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for Rupees 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rupees 2,500/- towards loss of estate.
58. As the Petitioners have filed the petition under Section 163(A) of M.V. Act, they are not entitled for any compensation under other heads.
59. In this way, the Petitioners are entitled for the following amount of compensation :-
Sl.No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 4,48,800-00
2. Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000-00
3. Loss of estate Rs. 2,500-00 TOTAL Rs. 4,53,300-00
60. In all, the Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 4,53,300/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above said sum from the date of Petition till payment.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 20
37. While answering Issue No.2, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571, which was driven by the deceased at the time of accident and the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-B-4811 were used in the alleged road traffic accident. The R.W.1, who is the State Head legal with the Respondent No.1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that, the Respondent No.1 had issued a policy of insurance in favour of Respondent No.2 in respect of Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571 and its liability if any is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy to valid and effective driving licence of the driver in question. He has further stated that, the deceased was traveling as a cleaner in the said Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571 and the policy issued in favour of the Respondent No.2 in respect of the said Bus does not cover the risk of cleaner and no premium is collected to cover the said risk and as such, the Respondent No.1 is not liable to indemnify the Respondent No.2 in respect of the death of deceased. He has produced Ex.R.2 Insurance Policy relating to the said Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01- AA-8571. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, it is mentioned in column No.4 of the claim petition that, the occupation of the deceased was cleaner cum Bus boy and the particulars of premium collection is mentioned in Ex.R.2 Insurance Policy, wherein, it is mentioned that, the paid driver/cleaner/coolie is Rupees 50/-. On perusal of the contents of Ex.R.2 Insurance Policy, it appears that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.2 was a owner and the Respondent No.2 is an insurer of the said Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-8571 and its Insurance Policy was valid, which (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 21 covers the date of accident. It is further clear from the contents of Ex.R.2 Insurance Policy that, paid driver/cleaner/coolies are also covered under the risk, as, the Insurance Company has collected a premium of Rupees 50/- from the owner of the said Bus. It is clear from the contents of Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.2 (a) Death Report and Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.6(a) charge sheet that, at the time of accident, the deceased was working as Attender-cum-Cleaner in the said Bus. On perusal of the nature of work and post narrated in the said Police documents as well as from the evidence of P.W.1 that, at the time of accident, the deceased was working as Attender-cum-Cleaner in the said Bus. When such being the material evidence, which is very much available on record, the Respondent No.1 being the insurer and the Respondent No.2 being the owner of the said Private Bus, wherein, the deceased was working, are liable to pay the compensation and interest to the Petitioners. Further, no charge sheet is filed as against the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-B-4811, which was owned by the Respondent No.4 and insured by the Respondent No.2 at the time of accident. No doubt, the Respondent No.3 has examined its Manager-cum-Legal as R.W.2, who has admitted the issuance of the Insurance Policy relating to the Lorry in his examination-in-chief. But, the Respondent No.3 and 4 are not liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioners, as, at the time of accident, the deceased was working under the Respondent No.2 in its office and Ex.R.2 Insurance Policy relating to the said bus, which has been used in the accident, was insured with the Respondent No.1, which is valid and which covers the risk of the cleaner. The Respondents No.1 and 2 are alone liable to pay the above said compensation (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 22 and interest to the Petitioners. Hence, the Respondent No.1 being an insurer shall indemnify the Respondent No.2. In view of the said reasons, the Petition filed by the Petitioners as against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable to be allowed and the petition filed by the Petitioners against the Respondent No.3 and 4 is liable to be rejected. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
38. ISSUE NO.4 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs as against the Respondents No.1 and 2.
The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby rejected as against the Respondents No.3 and
4. The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 4,53,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation with interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this order.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012 23 In the event of deposit of the said compensation and interest, the Petitioners No.1 to 4 shall share the same in the ratio of 20:60:15:5.
Out of the share of Petitioners No.1, 2 and 3, 50% shall be deposited in FD in any nationalized Bank of their choice for a period of 3 years and the balance shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques, on proper identification.
The entire share of Petitioner No.4 shall be released in her favour through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Advocates fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 22nd day of June, 2015.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Sri. Narayanaswamy
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
Ex.P.1 True Copy of FIR in Tamil Language
Ex.P.1(a) English Translation copy of Ex.P1
Ex.P.2 True copy of Death Report in Tamil
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.7050/2012
24
Language
Ex.P.2(a) English Translation copy of Ex.P2
Ex.P.3 True Copy of Spot Hand sketch.
Ex.P.3(a) English Translation copy of Ex.P3
Ex.P.4 True copy of Spot Mahazar in Tamil
Language
Ex.P.4(a) English Translation copy of Ex.P4
Ex.P.5 True copy of Inquest in Tamil
Language
Ex.P.5(a) English Translation copy of Ex.P5
Ex.P.6 True copy of Charge sheet in Tamil
Language
Ex.P.6(a) English Translation copy of Ex.P6
Ex.P.7 True copy of List of witness in Tamil
Language
Ex.P.7(a) English Translation copy of Ex.P7
Ex.P.8 Notarised xerox copy of Ration Card
(Compare with original, tallied and
.
returned).
WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
-NIL-
3. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
-NIL-
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR)
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.