Bangalore District Court
In 1. Anitha.N vs In 1. Channarayapa on 20 April, 2021
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU CITY
SCCH4
PRESENT: Smt.Champaka., B.A (LAW)., LL.M.,
Member, MACT,
XVIII ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 20th day of April 2021
MVC No.3960/2019 C/W 3961/2019
PETITIONER IN 1. Anitha.N,
MVC No.3960/2019 W/o Late Girish.S
Aged about 28 years.
2. Master Ullas.G
S/o Late Girish.S,
Aged about 9 years.
Both are residing at No.98/1,
Nerige, Sarjapura Circle, Kuguru,
Anekal, Bengaluru.
Since the 2nd petitioner is minor
Reptd. By his mother 1st petitioner
as natural guardian.
(By Sri.A.S.,Adv.,)
PETITIONER IN 1. Shivapriya.G,
MVC No.3961/2019 D/o Govindaraju,
Aged about 16 years.
SCCH4 2 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
Since the petitioner is minor reptd
by her maternal uncle as N/G
Munikrishna, S/o Sampangappa,
Aged about 40 years.
Both are residing at:
Nerige, Kuguru, Anekal,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.A.S.,Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENTS IN 1. Channarayapa,
Both the cases S/o Munivenkata Reddy,
No.184, Thubarahalli,
Ramagodanahalli Post,
Bengaluru560 066.
(By Sri.S.P.,Adv.,)
2. The Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd., R.O.44/45,
Leo shopping Complex,
Residency Road,
Bengaluru560 027.
Policy No.
423191/31/2019/1194
validity 27.07.2018 to 26.07.2019.
(By.Sri.R.B., Adv.,)
SCCH4 3 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
COMMON JUDGMENT
Both these petitions are filed under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, seeking compensation amount
for the death of Girish.S. S/o Sampangappa in MVC
3960/2019 and death of Ratnamma W/o Govindaraju
D/o Sampangappa in MVC 3961/2019, in a road traffic
accident.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Petitioners
are as follows:
On 22.06.2019 at about 5.40 a.m., when the
deceased i.e., Girish in MVC No.3960/2019 was riding a
motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA01HD8543 along with
his sister by name Ratnamma i.e., deceased in MVC
No.3961/2019, when they reached near Tippasandra
Gate, Neriga Gunjur road, at that time, one water tanker
bearing Reg.No.KA01AJ5661 being driven by its driver
in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human
SCCH4 4 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
life came in the opposite direction with high speed and
due to excessive speed the driver of the vehicle lost
control over his vehicle and came to the wrong side and
dashed against the deceased motor cycle, as a result of
which, both the deceased were sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
In MVC.No.3960/2019, the deceased Girish.S was
hale and healthy and aged about 34 years at the time of
his death. He was n employee of "Visakan Associates"
Bengaluru working as Cook, and was deputed to work at
ISRO Company, Bengaluru and was earning a sum of
Rs.20,000/ per month and he was contributing his
entire earnings towards the needs and welfare of the
petitioners family and they were entirely depending on
the earnings of the deceased. The petitioner No.1 is the
wife and petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased and
SCCH4 5 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
petitioners have put untold misery and mental agony due
to tragic death of the deceased.
In MVC.3961/2019, the deceased Ratnamma was
hale and healthy and aged about 36 years at the time of
her death. She was an employee of Sodexo Facilities
Management Services India Pvt., Ltd., and working as
House keeping and was deputed to work at Brooke Bond
Company, Bengaluru and earning Rs.15,000/ per
month and minor petitioner is entirely depending on the
earnings of deceased mother and she is finding extremely
difficult to eke out her livelihood as her father deserted
her mother since for the last 15 years and the deceased
was the only bread earner of her family and after the
desertion of his father both the deceased and minor
petitioner were living with her maternal uncle
Munikrishna and after the death of the deceased her
maternal uncle is taking care of the minor petitioner and
SCCH4 6 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
the maternal uncle is finding difficulty to give education
to the minor petitioner.
The accident occurred due to the carelessness, rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the water tanker.
The Sarjapura Police have registered the case against the
driver of the water tanker in crime No.115/2019. The
respondent No.1 being the R.C owner and respondent
No.2 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation. Hence, the petitions.
3. After service of summons, the respondent No.
1 and 2 have appeared through their counsels and the
respondent No.2 has filed its written statement. The
respondent No.1 has not chosen file the written
statement.
The respondent No.2 in its written statement denied
all the petition averments and contended that the
commercial package policy was in force and liability if
any is subjected to terms and conditions of the policy.
SCCH4 7 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
The owner of the vehicle not complied the statutory
demands. Further contended that, the the insured
vehicle was said to be driven by a person not possessing
valid and effective driving licence and respondent No.1
knowingly and willfully entrusted his vehicle to such a
person at that time of accident. Further contended that,
the alleged accident occurred only on the carelessness on
the part of the deceased/rider himself only, who is riding
his vehicle along with pillion rider in a zigzag manner
with high speed without wearing helmet and without
having valid and effective driving licence to drive the said
vehicle and came the line of lorry and invite the accident.
Further denied the age, occupation and income of the
deceased persons. The compensation claimed by the
petitioners is highly exaggerated and exorbitant. Hence,
sought for dismissal of both petitions.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
following issues have been framed:
SCCH4 8 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
ISSUES IN MVC.3960/2019 AND
MVC.3961/2019
1. Whether the petitioners prove
that deceased Sri.Girish.S. and
Smt.Ratnamma were died in RTA
arising out of accident alleged to
have been taken place on
22.06.2019 at about 5.40 a.m.,
near Neriga Gunjur Road,
Tippasandra Gate, Sarjapura Hobli,
Bengaluru District, due to the rash
and negligence driving of driver of
the water Tanker bearing
Reg.No.KA01AJ5661?
2. Whether the petitioners prove
that they are the dependents of the
deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are
entitled for compensation? If so,
what amount and from whom ?
4. What Order or Award?
5. As both the claim petitions are arising out of the
same accident, MVC.No.3960/2019 is clubbed with
MVC.No.3961/2019 for recording of common evidence
and for disposal.
SCCH4 9 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
6. In order to prove the above said issues, the
petitioner No.1 in MVC No.3960/2019 was examined as
PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15.
Further, the maternal uncle of the minor guardian
petitioner in MVC No.3961/2019 was examined as PW.2
and 2 and got marked documents at Ex.P.16 to P.25.
Further, the Mohan Kumar.S. HR Department at
Viskaan Associates in MVC No.3960/2019 was examined
as PW.3 and got marked documents at Ex.P.26 to 30.
Further, the Sushil Kumar Gupta, Senior Manager HR in
Sodexo Facilities Management Services India Pvt., Ltd.,
was examined as PW.4 and got marked documents at
Ex.P.31 to 33. Further, Anjinappa, eye witness was
examined in both the petition as PW.5 and got marked
one document at Ex.P.34. The respondent No.2
examined the Social Security officer, Bengaluru as RW.1
and got marked one document at Ex.R.1.
SCCH4 10 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
7. Heard the arguments.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
ISSUES IN MVC 3960/2019 and MVC 3961/2019
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
in all the following:
cases.
REASONS
9. ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES: In order to
prove these issues, the petitioner No.1 and minor
guardian of the petitioner are examined in both the cases
as PW.1 and 2 by filing the affidavits in lieu of chief
examination by reiterating the petition averments. They
have also produced 25 documents, which are marked as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25.
10. The petitioners taken the specific contention
that, on 22.06.2019 at about 5.40 a.m., when both the
SCCH4 11 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
deceased proceeding in a motor cycle near Tippasandra
Gate, Neriga Gunjur road, at that time, one water tanker
bearing Reg.No.KA01AJ5661 came in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the deceased motor
cycle, as a result of which, both the rider and pillion rider
succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
11. On perusal of the records, the Ex.P1 is FIR
registered by Sarajapura Police station on the basis of
statement/Ex.P2 given by the Munikrishna. The Ex.P3 is
the mahazar which discloses the occurrence of the
accident and spot of the accident. The Ex.P.4 is the IMV
report discloses the damages of the vehicles and the
accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the said
vehicles.
12. The Ex.P.5. 16, 6 and 17 are the PM reports
and Inquest reports which discloses the cause of death
and Ex.P.7 is the charge sheet filed by I.O after
investigation against the driver of the water tanker
SCCH4 12 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
bearing Reg.No.KA01AJ5661 for the offences
punishable under 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
13. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the eye
witnesses and they deposed in the line of petition
averments and they denied the accident was occurred
due to the rash and negligence of the rider of the motor
cycle. In order to prove the negligence of the rider of the
motor cycle and other defence, Except examine the
Social Security Officer, the respondent not chosen to
produce any oral or documentary evidence.
14. So, looking to these facts, this tribunal is of the
opinion that, the accident is caused due to the negligence
on the part of the driver of the water tanker. Moreover
the I.O. has filed the charge sheet against the driver of
the water tanker, prime facie discloses the accident
occurred due to the fault of the water tanker driver. In
view of this, I hold that petitioners in all these claim
SCCH4 13 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
petitions have proved that this accident occurred because
of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
water tanker as a result of which, both rider and pillion
rider succumbed to the injuries. Hence, I answer issue
No.1 in both the petitions in the affirmative.
15. Issue No.2 and 3 in MVC.3960/2019: This
issue relate to dependency, quantum of compensation to
be awarded to the petitioners and liable to pay the same.
16. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: To ascertain the
actual loss of dependency, the age, income of deceased
and the number of dependents of the deceased are to be
taken into consideration. It is the contention of the
petitioners that, they were depending upon the income of
the deceased and due to his death, they have lost love
and affection of the deceased.
17. The petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioner No.2
is the son of the deceased is not in dispute. The Ex.P.13
SCCH4 14 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
to 15 are the Aadhar cards of the deceased and petitioner
No.1 and 2 discloses the relationship of the petitioners
with the deceased. As such, the petitioners No.1 and 2
are entitled for the compensation on the ground of loss of
dependency.
18. It is the contention of the petitioners that, the
deceased prior to the accident was doing Cook at ISRO
Company, Bengaluru and earning Rs.20,000/ per
month. In order to prove the same, the petitioner
examined the Mohan Kumar.S, H.R.Department at
Viskaan Associates as PW.3 and got marked documents
at Ex.P.26 to 30 i.e., authorization letter, notarized copy
of the letter, Notarized copy of the pay slip, notarized
copy of the wages register and notarized copy of the
muster role. On going through the said documents it is
clear that, the deceased was working in ISRO through
contract of VISSKAN and withdraw salary of Rs.17,929/
in the month of May 2019 a per Ex.P28. By considering
SCCH4 15 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
the evidence as well as documents, this Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.17,700/ p.m.
by deducting professional tax.
19. As per petition deceased was aged 34 years. in
Ex.P13 Aadhar card, the date of birth of the deceased is
shown as 10.03.1984. The accident took place on
22.06.2019. So, this Tribunal has considered age of the
deceased as 35 years. The multiplier applicable to this
age is 16.
20. During the evidence the PW.1 deposed that,
her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw were not alive. As
such, the petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for the
compensation on the ground of loss of dependency. The
claim of the petitioners that, they were depending upon
the income of the deceased has not been proved contrary
by the respondents. Under such circumstances, the
claim of the petitioners in this regard can be accepted.
Hence, it is clear that, petitioners No.1 and 2 are
SCCH4 16 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
depending on the income of the deceased, hence, 1/3 rd of
the income should be taken towards personal expenses of
the deceased.
21. Considering recent judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Special leave petition
(Civil No.25590/2014 dated 31.10.2016 (National
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others), in which it is observed that "in case if the
deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an
addition of 40% of the established income should be
the warrant where the deceased was below the age of
40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was
between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years
should be regarded as the necessary method of
computation".
SCCH4 17 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
22. In a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem
Raj V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & others),
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, there cannot
be distinction where there is evidence of income and
where minimum income is determined on guesswork, as
such addition on account of future prospects is
admissible where minimum income is determined on
guess work in the absence of proof of income.
23. In the case on hand, the deceased was aged 35
years. His income was considered as Rs.17,700/ per
month and as per the decision stated above, it is clear
that, the tribunal has to consider future prospects even
for selfemployed or were engaged on fixed wages.
Admittedly, the age of the deceased falls below the age
group of 40 years. So 40% of the future prospects is
taken into consideration. Taking into consideration of the
same, if, 40% is added to the income of the deceased it
SCCH4 18 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
would be Rs.17,700/ + 40% (7,080/) = Rs.24,780/ per
month. Admittedly there are two dependents, hence 1/3rd
of the income has to be deducted towards personal
expenses. So, 1/3rd of Rs.24,780/ would be Rs.8,260/
(24,7808,260). Annual income is Rs.1,98,240/ =
(Rs.16,520/ X 12). The appropriate Multiplier is "16".
Thus the loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,98,240/
X 16 = Rs.31,71,840/.
24. So, far as awarding compensation under other
conventional heads are concerned, the petitioners have
stated that, they have spent amount towards shifting of
dead body and performing of funeral and obsequies
ceremony. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
judgment passed in Special Leave petition (Civil)
No.25590/2014 dated 31102017 (National Insurance
Co. Ltd., V/s Pranaya Sethi and Ors.), wherein it is
held that as far as conventional heads are concerned, the
SCCH4 19 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
petitioners are entitled funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/,
and under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/.
25. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.9581/2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil)
No.3192/2018) in case of Muama General Insurance
Co.Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and
Others.
In which it is held in para No.8.7 that:
" A Constitution Bench of this Court
in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the
various heads under which the
compensation it so be awarded in a
death case. One of these heads is "Loss
of Consortium":
In legal parlance "consortium" is a
compendious term which encompasses
'spousal consortium; parental
consortium and filial consortium.
The right to consortium would
include the company, care, help,
comfort, guidance, solace and affection
of the deceased, which is a loss to his
SCCH4 20 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the
deceased spouse.
Spouse consortium is generally
defined as rights pertaining to the
relationship of a husband -wife which
allows compensation to the surviving
spouse for loss of "company, society, co
operation, affection and aid of the other
in every conjugal relation."
Parental consortium is granted to
the child upon the premature death of a
parent, for loss of "parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline,
guidance and training."
Filial consortium is the right of the
parents to compensation in the case of
an accidental death of a child. An
accident leading to the death of a child
causes great shock and agony to the
parents and family of the deceased. The
greatest agony for a parent is to lose
their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love,
affection, companionship and their oral
in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism
reflection changing norms about the
status and worth of actual relationship.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have
recognized that the value Further on
SCCH4 21 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
perusal of child's consortium far exceeds
the economic value of the compensation
awarded in case of death of a child.
Most jurisdictions therefore permit
parents to be awarded compensation
under loss of consortium on the death of
a child. The amount awarded to the
parents is a compensating for loss of
love, affection, care and companionship
of the deceased child.
26. The petitioners are the wife, children of the
deceased are entitled for consortium for loss of
"protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training. Therefore, Rs.40,000/ each is awarded to the
petitioner No.1 and 2 under the head of loss of
consortium.
27. The petitioners are entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
a) Loss of dependency Rs. 31,71,840/
b) Loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/
c) Towards transportation of Rs. 15,000/
dead body and funeral
expenses
d) Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/
Total : Rs.32,81,840/
SCCH4 22 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.32,81,840/ which can be rounded off
Rs.32,82,000/.
28. Issue No.2 and 3 in MVC.3961/2019: This
issue relate to dependency, quantum of compensation to
be awarded to the petitioners and liable to pay the same.
29. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: To ascertain the
actual loss of dependency, the age, income of deceased
and the number of dependants of the deceased are to be
taken into consideration. It is the contention of the
petitioner that, she is solely depending upon the income
of the deceased and due to her death, the petitioner has
lost love and affection of her mother.
30. The minor petitioner is the daughter of the
deceased is not in dispute. The Ex.P.22, 23 and 25 are
the Aadhar cards of the deceased and minor petitioner
and ration card of the deceased discloses the relationship
SCCH4 23 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
of the minor petitioner with the deceased. As such, the
minor petitioner is entitled for the compensation on the
ground of loss of dependency.
31. It is the contention of the petitioners that, the
deceased prior to the accident was doing House Keeper at
Brooke Bond Company and earning Rs.15,000/ per
month.
32. Further the petitioner has examined the Sushil
Kumar Gupta, Senior Manager at Sodexo Facilities
Management Services India Pvt., Ltd., as PW.4 and got
marked documents at Ex.P.31 to 33 i.e., attested copy of
the appointment letter, attested copy of the wage slip and
muster roll.
33. On going through the said documents it is
clear that, the deceased was working in Sodexo Quality of
Life services and withdraw salary of Rs.12,466/ in the
month of April 2019 to May 2019 as per Ex.P32. By
considering the evidence as well as documents, this
SCCH4 24 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.12,250/ p.m. by deducting professional tax.
34. As per petition deceased was aged 36 years. in
Ex.P22 Aadhar card, the date of birth of the deceased is
shown as 01.01.1983. The accident took place on
22.06.2019. So, this Tribunal has considered age of the
deceased as 36 years. The multiplier applicable to this
age is 15.
35. On perusal of the materials on record, i.e.,
Ex.P22 Aadhar cards discloses the name of the deceased
Ratanamma is the mother of the minor petitioner. As
such, the minor petitioner is entitled for the
compensation on the ground of loss of dependency. The
claim of the minor petitioner that, she was depending
upon the income of the deceased has not been proved
contrary by the respondents. Under such circumstances,
the claim of the petitioners in this regard can be
SCCH4 25 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
accepted. Hence, it is clear that, minor petitioner is
depending on the income of the deceased, hence, half of
the income should be taken towards personal expenses of
the deceased.
36. Considering recent judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Special leave petition
(Civil No.25590/2014 dated 31.10.2016 (National
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others), in which it is observed that "in case if the
deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an
addition of 40% of the established income should be
the warrant where the deceased was below the age of
40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was
between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years
SCCH4 26 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
should be regarded as the necessary method of
computation".
37. In a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem
Raj V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & others),
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, there cannot
be distinction where there is evidence of income and
where minimum income is determined on guesswork, as
such addition on account of future prospects is
admissible where minimum income is determined on
guess work in the absence of proof of income.
38. In the case on hand, the deceased was aged 36
years. Her income was considered as Rs.12,250/ per
month and as per the decision stated above, it is clear
that, the tribunal has to consider future prospects even
for selfemployed or were engaged on fixed wages.
Admittedly, the age of the deceased falls below the age
group of 40 years. So 40% of the future prospects is
SCCH4 27 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
taken into consideration. Taking into consideration of
the same, if, 40% is added to the income of the deceased
it would be Rs.12,250/ + 40% (4,900/) = Rs.17,150/
per month. Admittedly there are sole dependent, hence ½
of the income has to be deducted towards personal
expenses. So, ½ of Rs.17,150/ would be Rs.8,575/
(17,1508,575). Annual income is Rs.1,02,900/ =
(Rs.8,575/ X 12). The appropriate Multiplier is "15".
Thus the loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,02,900/
X 15 = Rs.15,43,500/.
39. So, far as awarding compensation under other
conventional heads are concerned, the petitioners have
stated that, they have spent amount towards shifting of
dead body and performing of funeral and obsequies
ceremony. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
judgment passed in Special Leave petition (Civil)
No.25590/2014 dated 31102017 (National Insurance
SCCH4 28 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
Co. Ltd., V/s Pranaya Sethi and Ors.), wherein it is
held that as far as conventional heads are concerned, the
petitioners are entitled funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/,
and under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/.
40. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.9581/2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil)
No.3192/2018) in case of Muama General Insurance
Co.Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and
Others.
In which it is held in para No.8.7 that:
" A Constitution Bench of this Court
in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the
various heads under which the
compensation it so be awarded in a
death case. One of these heads is "Loss
of Consortium":
In legal parlance "consortium" is a
compendious term which encompasses
'spousal consortium; parental
consortium and filial consortium.
SCCH4 29 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
The right to consortium would
include the company, care, help,
comfort, guidance, solace and affection
of the deceased, which is a loss to his
family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the
deceased spouse.
Spouse consortium is generally
defined as rights pertaining to the
relationship of a husband -wife which
allows compensation to the surviving
spouse for loss of "company, society, co
operation, affection and aid of the other
in every conjugal relation."
Parental consortium is granted to
the child upon the premature death of a
parent, for loss of "parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline,
guidance and training."
Filial consortium is the right of the
parents to compensation in the case of
an accidental death of a child. An
accident leading to the death of a child
causes great shock and agony to the
parents and family of the deceased. The
greatest agony for a parent is to lose
their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love,
affection, companionship and their oral
in the family unit.
SCCH4 30 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
Consortium is a special prism
reflection changing norms about the
status and worth of actual relationship.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have
recognized that the value Further on
perusal of child's consortium far exceeds
the economic value of the compensation
awarded in case of death of a child.
Most jurisdictions therefore permit
parents to be awarded compensation
under loss of consortium on the death of
a child. The amount awarded to the
parents is a compensating for loss of
love, affection, care and companionship
of the deceased child.
41. The petitioner is the daughter of the deceased
are entitled for consortium for loss of "protection,
affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.
Therefore, Rs.40,000/ is awarded to the petitioner
under the head of loss of consortium.
42. The petitioners are entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
a) Loss of dependency Rs. 15,43,500/
b) Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/
c) Towards transportation of Rs. 15,000/
dead body and funeral
expenses
d) Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/
Total : Rs.16,13,500/
SCCH4 31 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.16,13,500/ which can be rounded off
Rs.16,14,000/.
43. Liability: As discussed above, the accident
was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of water tanker bearing Reg.No.KA01AJ5661.
The respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent
No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners. However, the respondent No.2 has to
indemnify the owner. This Court has gone through the
decision laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in MFA No.103557/2016 (MV). In the said
judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed
that the rate of interest is to be 6% p.a., keeping in line
with statutory ceiling limit. Accordingly, I answered issue
SCCH4 32 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
No.2 and issue No.3 in the partly affirmative in both the
petitions.
44. Issue No.4 in both the petitions: On detailed
discussions made herein above, this Tribunal proceeds to
pass the following:
::ORDER::
The claim petitions of petitioners in MVC.No.3960/2019 and MVC.No. 3961/2019, are partly allowed with cost as against respondents.
The petitioners in MVC.3960/2019 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.32,82,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from respondents.
The petitioner in MVC.3961/2019 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.16,14,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from respondents.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners and shall deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this judgment. SCCH4 33 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019 After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.3960/2019, 60% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 40% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1, 50% shall be deposited as F.D. in her name in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period of three years and the remaining 50% balance amount with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1, through epayment on proper identification and verification.
Entire compensation amount awarded to minor petitioner No.2 shall be deposited as F.D. in his name in any nationalized or schedule bank till he attain the age of majority and the petitioner No.1 being natural guardian of minor petitioner is at liberty to withdraw interest accrued thereon periodically for welfare of the minor petitioner No.2.
After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.3961/2019 entire compensation amount awarded to minor petitioner shall be deposited as F.D. in her name in any nationalized or schedule bank till she attain the age of majority SCCH4 34 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019 and the maternal uncle being natural guardian of minor petitioner is at liberty to withdraw interest accrued thereon periodically for welfare of the minor petitioner.
Fee of counsel for petitioners is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in both the cases.
Draw an award accordingly in both the claim petitions.
(Original judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.3960/2019 and copy of the same in MVC No.3961/2019) (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 20 th day of April, 2021) (Smt.Champaka) XVIII ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Smt.Anitha.N PW.2 Sri.Munikrishna PW.3 Sri.Mohan Kumar.S PW.4 Sri.Sushil Kumar Gupta PW.5 Sri.Anjinappa SCCH4 35 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 Statement Ex.P3 Mahazar Ex.P4 IMV report Ex.P5 PM report Ex.P6 Inquest report Ex.P7 Charge sheet Ex.P8 Notarized copy of driving licence Ex.P9 Notarized copy of the RC Ex.P10 Notarized copy of the Bank pass book Ex.P11 Notarized copy of the pan card Ex.P12 Form No.3(a) issued by the employer
Ex.P13 to 15 Notarized copy of the aadhar cards Ex.P16 PM report Ex.P17 Inquest report Ex.P18 Notarized copy of the employment indentity card Ex.P19 Notarized copy of the appoint letter Ex.P20 Notarized copy of the Pan card Ex.P21 Notarized copy of the pay slip Ex.P22 to 25 Notarized copy of the aadhar cards and ration card Ex.P26 Authorization letter Ex.P27 Notarized copy of the letter Ex.P28 Notarized copy of the pay slip Ex.P29 Notarized copy of the Wages Register Ex.P30 Notarized copy of the Muster role Ex.P31 Attested copy of the appointment letter Ex.P32 Attested copy of the Wage slip Ex.P33 Muster roll Ex.P.34 Notarized copy of the Aadhar card SCCH4 36 MVC Nos.3960 and 3961/2019 List of witnesses examined for the Respondents:
RW.1 : Sri.Dhamodhar List of documents marked on behalf of Respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Registration details XVIII ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.