Bangalore District Court
Savithramma vs Icici Lombard Motor Insurance on 19 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated this 19th day of August 2016.
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.No.4662/2015
PETITIONERS: 1. Savithramma,
W/o Late Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 32 years,
R/o No.427/11, 7th Cross,
Behind Sharavathi Hotel,
Sector, Yelahanka New town,
Bangalore - 64.
2. Master Darshan,
S/o Late Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 10 years,
3. Master Shashank,
S/o Late Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 7 years,
4. Smt. Arasamma,
W/o Ramaiah,
Aged about 70 years,
2 MVC No.4662/2015
SCCH-18
R/o Hadonahalli,
Nelagudge Hadonahalli post,
Doddaballapura taluk,
Bangalore rural district.
PIN - 561 205
Petitioner No.2 and 3 are the minor
Represented by their mother and
Natural guardian Smt. Savithramma,
(By Pleader Sri.SVS)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance
Co. Ltd. by its Manager,
No.89, SVR Complex,
2nd floor, Near Ayyappa temple,
Hosur main road,
Madivala,
Bangalore - 560 068.
(By Pleader Sri. BP)
2. Vijaya Krishna Kumar A.K.
S/o Karuppaiah,
Aged major, R/o. No.12,
NP Factory road,
2nd Cross, Opp. Anthony church,
Kaval Byrasandra,
R.T. Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 032.
(Exparte)
3 MVC No.4662/2015
SCCH-18
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have filed this claim petition against the respondents U/S. 166 of M.V. Act for seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of Sri. R. Krishna Murthy S/o. Late Ramaiah in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the petition are as under:
On 10.10.2015 at about 7.20 P.M., deceased Krishna Murthy and his son Shashank and his wife i.e., 1st petitioner were standing by the side of the road opposite to KEB office near Yelahanka circle on D.B. Pura main road, at that time, the driver of the Car bearing Reg. No.KA-51-MA-2436 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to Krishna Murthy and his son Master Shashank. Due to the said impact, Krishna Murthy and his son Master Shashank have fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the public gathered at 4 MVC No.4662/2015 SCCH-18 the spot have shifted the injured persons to Apurva hospital, Yelahanka, wherein they have taken first aid and thereafter, they were shifted to Columbia Asia hospital and thereafter, they were shifted to Manasa SLV hospital, Bangalore, for treatment, wherein the injured Krishna Murthy succumbed to the said injuries. Thereafter, the dead body of Krishna Murthy was shifted to Government hospital, Yelahanka for post mortem and after the post mortem, the petitioners have received the dead body and conducted the funeral and obsequies ceremonies by spending huge amount.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that, the petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 and 3 are the children and the petitioner No.4 is the mother of deceased Krishna Murthy and they are the legal heirs and dependants of deceased.
5 MVC No.4662/2015
SCCH-18
4. The contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Krishna Murthy was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 35 years, doing Dobhi work and earning Rs.500/- per day. Further the contention of the petitioners is that, due to unexpected death of Krishna Murthy, they have suffered lot and also they have lost their bread earner.
5. Further the contention of the petitioners is that, the respondent No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.1 is the insurer of the alleged Car bearing Reg. No.KA-51-MA-2436 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said car and as such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Contending the above facts, they prays to grant for compensation with interest and cost.
6 MVC No.4662/2015
SCCH-18
6. In response to the petition notice, the respondent No.1 has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed the objection statement. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has not appeared before the court. Accordingly, he was placed exparte.
7. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent no.1 are as under:
The respondent No.1 has denied the issuance of policy to the alleged car and contended that, if the petitioners have proved that, the policy was issued to the alleged car and the same is in force as on the date of accident, then, the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. Further he contended that, the owner of the vehicle and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provision of 134 (c) and 158 (6) of MV act. Further, the respondent No.1 has denied the entire accident in toto. Further he contended 7 MVC No.4662/2015 SCCH-18 that, the alleged accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of Krishna Murthy as he was negligently crossing the road at the time of accident. Further he contended that, the driver of the alleged car was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident and as such, the owner of the vehicle has violated the policy conditions. Hence, the respondent No.1 is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.2. Further the respondent No.1 has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and also relationship of the petitioners with the deceased and dependency of them with the deceased. Further he contended that, the compensation claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant and fanciful one. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition as against him with cost.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
8 MVC No.4662/2015
SCCH-18
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Sri. R. Krishna Murthy S/o Ramaiah died due to injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 10-
10-2015, at about 7:20 p.m., near Yelahanka Circle, opposite KEB Office, near Yelahanka circle , D.B NB., Bangalore involving CAR bearing Reg. No.KA-51-MA-2436 belonging to Respondent No.2 and the said vehicle st insured with 1 respondent?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident has mainly occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the only legal heirs and the dependent of the deceased?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed? if so, at what rate and from whom?
5. What order or award?
9 MVC No.4662/2015
SCCH-18
9. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to P-14.
10. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence are produced.
11. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
12. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 to 3: In the Affirmative Issue No. 4 : In the Partly affirmative Issue No.5: As per final order For the following:
REASONS
13. Issue No.1 & 2 : These issues are interconnected with each other. Hence in order to avoid the repetition of facts, these issues are taken together for common consideration.
14. On perusal of the records, it reveals that, to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW-1 and 10 MVC No.4662/2015 SCCH-18 she has stated in her evidence by reiterating the contents of petition. Further in support of her evidence, the PW-1 has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 to 14.
15. Thereafter, the counsel for the respondent No.1 has cross examined the PW-1 at length. In the cross examination, the PW-1 has clearly stated at page No.7 and 8 that:-
"C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁ¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ, C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀÞ¼ÀzÀ §½ £Á£ÀÄ, £À£Àß ¥Àw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ±À±ÁAPï gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁlÄwÛzÉݪÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁ¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ¤AvÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D ªÉüÉUÉ £À£Àß ¥Àw £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃV §gÀĪÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁV UÀªÀĤ¸ÀzÉà MªÉÄäUÉ gÀ¸ÉÛ zÁl®Ä ºÉÆÃzÀ PÁgÀt, CªÀjUÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
CfðAiÀÄ°è PÁtô¹zÀAvÉ £À£Àß ¥ÀwUÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁUÀ®Ä PÁgï ZÁ®PÀ£À vÀ¥ÀÅà EgÀzÉà £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀÄ ¤®ðPÀëvÀ£À¢AzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è." 11 MVC No.4662/2015
SCCH-18 On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that, the defence of the respondent No.1 is that, the alleged accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car, on the other hand, the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased Krishna Murthy.
16. To prove the said defence, the respondent No.1 has not produced any supportive documents and also not produced any rebuttal documents to disbelieve the version of the petitioners.
On the other hand, on perusal of the entire evidence of PW-1, it appears that, though, the counsel of the respondent No.1 has cross examined the PW-1 at length, but, nothing has been elicited from her to disbelieve her version regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of 12 MVC No.4662/2015 SCCH-18 the opinion that, the oral contention of the respondent No.1 is not acceptable one.
17. Further to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged Car bearing Reg. No.KA-51-MA-2436, the petitioners have relied upon the copy of police investigation papers and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 to 7. On perusal of Ex.P.1 and 7 i.e., copy of FIR with complaint and charge sheet, it reveals that, Yelahanka traffic police have registered a case in Crime No.197/2015 against the driver of the car and after completion of investigation, the concerned police have filed the Charge sheet against the driver of the said car.
18. Considering the above facts and also on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, petitioners have proved that, the accident has mainly occurred due to rash and negligent 13 MVC No.4662/2015 SCCH-18 driving of the driver of the Car bearing Reg. No.KA-51-MA-2436 as alleged in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence.
19. Further on perusal of Ex.P.5 and 6 i.e., copy of Inquest Panchanama and PM report, it shows that, Krishna Murthy has sustained grievous injuries in the above said accident and succumbed to the said injuries.
20. On appreciation of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have proved these issues by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, I answer these issues are in the affirmative.
21. Issue No.3:- The specific contention of the petitioners is that, the petitioner No.1 is the wife and the petitioner No.2 and 3 are the children and the petitioner No.4 is the mother of 14 MVC No.4662/2015 SCCH-18 deceased and they are the legal heirs and dependants of deceased.
22. To prove the relationship, the petitioners have relied upon the copy of Inquest Panchanama and copy of Aadhaar cards of petitioner No.1 to 3 and the same are marked as Ex.P.5, 10 to 12 respectively. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1 coupled with contents of Inquest Panchanama and contents of Aadhaar cards, it shows that, the petitioners are the wife, children and mother of deceased and they are the legal heirs and dependants of deceased. Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have proved this issue by producing sufficient documents. Accordingly, I answer this issue is in the Affirmative.
23. Issue No.4: The specific contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Krishna Murthy was hale and 15 MVC No.4662/2015 SCCH-18 healthy at the time of accident, aged about 35 years, doing Dhobhi work and earning Rs.500/- per day. Further the contention of the petitioners is that, due to unexpected death Krishna Murthy, they have suffered lot and also lost their bread earner.
On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased.
24. To prove the age of the deceased, the petitioners have not produced any authenticated document. On the other hand, on perusal of the records, wherein, the copy of Aadhaar card standing in the name of deceased is available (unmarked). On perusal of the copy of Aadhaar card, wherein, the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 10.7.1974 and the same is considered as date of birth of the deceased, then, it is clear that, as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 41 16 MVC No.4662/2015 SCCH-18 years. Hence, the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is "14".
25. To prove the occupation and income of the deceased, the petitioners have not produced any supportive documents. On the other hand, on perusal of the contents of inquest panchanama, wherein, the occupation of the deceased is shown as Dhobhi work. Considering the above facts and in the absence of positive documents regarding the income and occupation of the deceased, I am of the opinion that, if the income of deceased is considered as Rs.7,000/- P.M. scertainly it would meet the ends of justice.
26. Further as stated above that, the deceased was aged about 41 years as on the date of accident. Hence, in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in citation reported in 2015 ACJ 1985 (Munnalal Jain and another V/s Vipinkumar Singh 17 MVC No.4662/2015 SCCH-18 and others) if 30% of the income is to be added to the income of deceased as future prospectus, on such addition, the total income of the deceased comes to Rs.9,100/- P.M.
27. Further as stated above that, there are four dependants. Hence, if 1/4th of the total income of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal expenses, on such deduction, income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,825/- P.M.
28. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.6,825/- P.M. (after deduction of personal expenses) and the multiplier 14 is applied, then the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,46,600/- (6,825 x 12 x 14). Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.11,47,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. 18 MVC No.4662/2015
SCCH-18
29. Further the petitioner no.1 is the wife of deceased and as such, she is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of consortium.
30. Further the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the head of loss of estate and they are also entitled for compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the head of loss of Love and affection and also they are entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses.
The contention of the petitioners is that, they have spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses to injured Krishna Murthy. In support of the said contention, the petitioners have relied upon the receipt and medical bills and the same are marked at Ex.P.8 and 14. On perusal of Ex.P.8 and 14, it reveals that, the petitioners have spent an amount of 19 MVC No.4662/2015 SCCH-18 Rs.6,480/- towards medical expenses. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.6,000/- under the head of medical expenses.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,33,000/- under the following heads.
Compensation heads Compensation amount Towards loss of dependency Rs. 11,47,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 60,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 30,000/- Towards transportation of dead body, Rs. 30,000/- funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses Towards loss of estate Rs. 60,000/-
Towards Medical expenses Rs. 6,000/-
Total Rs. 13,33,000/-
31. LIABILITY: On perusal of contents of petition and contents of objection statement, it reveals that, the respondent No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.1 is the insurer of the 20 MVC No.4662/2015 SCCH-18 Car bearing Reg. No.KA-51-MA-2436 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further as stated above that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the above said car. Hence, the respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the insurer of the alleged car is liable to pay compensation of Rs.13,33,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Hence, I answer the issue No.4 is in the partly affirmative.
32. ISSUE NO.5: In view of my findings, on issue No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioners U/S.166 of M.V. Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
21 MVC No.4662/2015
SCCH-18 The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.13,33,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, in view of the policy, the respondent No.1 insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
Out of the above compensation amount, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.4,70,000/- and the petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for compensation amount of Rs.3,30,000/- each and the petitioner No.4 is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.2,03,000/-.
Out of the above said compensation amount awarded to the petitioner No.1 and 4, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.75,000/- shall be kept in FD, in the name of petitioner No.1 and 4 respectively in any nationalized/scheduled bank of their choice, for a period of 3 years and remaining amount with accrued 22 MVC No.4662/2015 SCCH-18 interest shall be paid to them through account payee cheques on proper identification.
Entire amount with accrued interest awarded to the petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner No.2 and 3 represented by their natural guardian/mother in any nationalized/scheduled bank of their choice till they attains the age of majority.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 19th day of August 2016).
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM BENGALURU.
23 MVC No.4662/2015
SCCH-18 ANNEXURE OF EVIDENCE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
P.W.1. Smt. Savithramma List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint Ex-P2 Certified copy of Panchanama Ex-P3 Certified copy of Rough Sketch Ex-P4 Certified copy of MVI report Ex-P5 Certified copy of Inquest Panchanama Ex-P6 Certified copy of PM report Ex-P7 Certified copy of Charge sheet Ex-P8 One receipt Ex-P9 2 ECG reports
Ex-P10-12 Notarized copy of the Aadhaar cards Ex.P13 3 prescriptions Ex.P14 3 Medical bills List of witnesses examined on respondent's side:
-None-
List of documents exhibited on respondent's side:
-Nil-
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM.