Bangalore District Court
Narasaiah vs P.N.Ramachandra on 27 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated this 27th day of October 2016.
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.No.310/2016
PETITIONERS: 1. Narasaiah,
S/o. Late.Balagangaih
Aged about 50 years.
2. Narasamma
D/o.Narasaiah
Aged about 19 years,
Both are resident of
Thippasandra Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk--572 130.
Tumkur District.
(By Pleader Sri.GPS)
/Vs/
2 MVC.NO.310/2016
SCCH-18
RESPONDENTS: 1. P.N.RAmachandra,
S/o.Narasimhamurthy,
R/o.No.87, Surabi.G.F.
4th Main, Ittamadu,
B.D.A.Layout,
B.S.K.3rd Stage, 3rd Phase
Bangalore-560 085.
(By Pleader Sri.HKS)
2. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
D.A.B 2, No.44,
Sri Chamundeshwari Complex,
Next to Kamakya Theater,
B.S.K.3rd Stage, 3rd Phase
Bangalore-560 085.
(By Pleader Sri.GNS)
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.25,00,000/- for the death of Smt.Jayamma W/o. Narasaiah in a motor vehicle accident.
3 MVC.NO.310/2016
SCCH-18
2. The brief contents of petition are as under:
The contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Jayamma was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 40 years and doing milk vending business and agricultural work and earning Rs.12,000/-p.m. from milk vending and Rs.1,00,000/-P.A. from agricultural work. On 24-12-2015, at about 11.30 a.m., the petitioner No.1 and his wife deceased Jayamma and another were proceeding in a bullock cart for attending agricultural work and when they reached near hamama place on NH-75 bypass road, at that time, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-01-Z-0967 drive the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bullock card. Due to the said impact, Jayamma was sustained grevious injuries and her husband i.e. petitioner No.1 has sustained simple injuries. Thereafter the car driver and other public gathered at the spot have shifted the injured Jayamma to Government Hospital, 4 MVC.NO.310/2016 SCCH-18 Kunigal for treatment, wherein she succumbed to the said injuries. After the postmortem, the petitioners have received the dead body and conducted the funeral and obsequies ceremony by spending huge amount.
3. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the alleged car bearing registration No.KA-01-Z-0967 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and 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.
4. In response to the petition notice, the respondent No.1 & 2 have appeared before the court through their respective counsel and filed the objection statement. 5 MVC.NO.310/2016
SCCH-18
5. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent No.1 are as under:
The respondent No.1 contended in the objection statement that, he is the owner of offending car and the said car was insured with respondent No.2. Further the respondent No.1 has denied the contents of column No.1 to 6, 8 to 14 of petition in toto. Further the respondent No.1 has denied the alleged rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending car. Further the respondent No.1 has denied the age, occupation and income of deceased and expenses incurred by petitioners for transporting of dead body, funeral and other expenses. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition as against him with cost.
6. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent No.2 are as under:
6 MVC.NO.310/2016
SCCH-18 The respondent No.2 contended in the objection statement that, the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further the respondent No.2 admitted the issuance of policy to the offending car and the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. Further he contended that, the insured has not intimated the accident fact to the insurer. Further he contended that, the offending car was not involved in the accident, in spite of that, the complainant has lodged the false complaint against the driver of the offending vehicle. Further he contended that, the concerned police have not complied the provision of Sec.158 (6) of M.V.Act. Further he contended that, the petitioner No.1 is an earning member and the petitioner No.2 is a major and as such, they are not the dependents of deceased. Further he contended that, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the 7 MVC.NO.310/2016 SCCH-18 vehicle. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition as against him with cost.
7. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1.Whether the petitioners prove that Smt. Jayamma W/o Narasaiah died due to injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 24.12.2015, at about 11.30.A.M., near Hamama, on NH-75 Bypass Road, Chotanahalli, Tumkur District, involving CAR bearing Reg. No.KA-01-Z-0967 belonging to Respondent No.1 and the said vehicle insured with 2nd 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?8 MVC.NO.310/2016
SCCH-18
8. In order to prove the case, the petitioner no.1 has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to P-10.
9. The respondents have not produced any oral and documentary evidence on their behalf.
10. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
11. 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:
R E A S O N S
12. Issues No.1 & 2: These issues are interconnected with each other. Hence in order to avoid the repetition of facts, they are taken together for common consideration.
13. Perused the records. On perusal of the records, it reveals that, to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has examined himself as PW-1 and he has stated in his evidence by 9 MVC.NO.310/2016 SCCH-18 reiterating the contents of petition. Further in support of his evidence, the PW-1 has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex.P1 to 10.
14. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the P.W.1 at length. In the cross-examination, the PW-1 has clearly stated at Page No. 5 to 7 that:-
"CfðAiÀÄ°è PÁtô¹zÀ PÁgï £ÉÆÃAzÀtô ¸ÀASÉå PÉJ- 01-dqï-967 ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀÅ £ÁªÀÅ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ JwÛ£À §ArUÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
"CfðAiÀÄ°è PÁtô¹zÀAvÉ PÁgï £À£Àß ¥ÀwßUÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà EzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÁ, £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁgï£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÉÆA¢UÉ PÀÆr, PÁgï ZÁ®PÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¦ügÁåzÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀɪAÉ zÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
On perusal of above evidence, it reveals that, the respondent No.2 has denied the involvement of the alleged vehicle in the accident and denied the entire accident in toto. 10 MVC.NO.310/2016
SCCH-18
15. To prove the said fact and to disprove the case of the petitioners, the respondents have not produced any supportive documents. On the other hand, to prove the involvement of the alleged car in the accident and to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car, the petitioners have relied upon the copy of police investigation papers and the same are marked as E.x.P.1 to 9.
On perusal of Ex-P-1 i.e. copy of FIR with complaint, it reveals that, within 2 hours from occurrence of accident, one Govindaiah has lodged a complaint before the Kunigal Police and after receipt of the complaint, the concerned police have registered a case against the driver of the offending car for the offences punishable U/S.279, 337 and 304 (A) of IPC. Further on perusal of Ex.P.9 i.e copy of charge sheet, it shows that, after completion of investigation, the concerned police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the alleged car. 11 MVC.NO.310/2016
SCCH-18 Further as stated above that, the respondents have not produced any rebuttal documents to disbelieve the version of the petitioners.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the contention of the respondent No.2 is not acceptable one.
16. Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of Pw-1 and coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have proved that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car as contended in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence.
17. Further on perusal of Ex.P.6 & 7 i.e. copy of Inquest panchanama and PM report, it shows that, Jayamma has sustained grievous injuries in the accident and succumbed to the said injuries.
12 MVC.NO.310/2016
SCCH-18
18. Considering the above facts and 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 sufficient documents. Accordingly, I answer these issues in the affirmative.
19. Issue No.3: The specific contention of petitioners is that, the petitioner No.1 and 2 are the husband and daughter of deceased Jayamma and they are the legal heirs and dependants of deceased.
On the other hand, the respondent No.1 & 2 have denied the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased and also dependency of them with the deceased. Further the specific contention of the respondent No.2 is that, the petitioner No.1 is an earning member and the petitioner No.2 is a major women and as such, they are not the dependents of deceased. 13 MVC.NO.310/2016
SCCH-18
20. To prove the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, the petitioners have relied upon the copy of Inquest panchanama and copy of ration card and the same are marked as Ex.P.6 & 10. On perusal of evidence of Pw-1 coupled with contents of inquest panchanama and ration card, it reveals that, the petitioner No.1 is the husband and the petitioner No.2 is the daughter of deceased Jayamma. Further on perusal of cause title, it shows that, the petitioner No.2 is a daughter of deceased and she is aged about 19 years, but she is an unemployee and unmarried women. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the contention of the respondent No.2 is not acceptable one.
21. On the other hand, on perusal of evidence of Pw-1 coupled with contents of Ex.P.10-ration card, it shows that, the petitioners are the husband and daughter of deceased and as such, they are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased. For 14 MVC.NO.310/2016 SCCH-18 the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have proved this issue by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, I answer this Issue in the affirmative.
22. Issue No.4: The specific contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Jayamma was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 40 years, working as milk vendor and agricultural coolie and earning Rs.12,000/-p.m. from milk vending and earning Rs.1,00,000/-P.A. from agriculture work. Further the contention of the petitioners is that, they are the dependents of deceased and due to unexpected death of deceased, they have lost their bread earner.
23. On the other hand, the respondents have disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased and dependency of the petitioners upon the income of deceased.
24. To prove the age, the petitioners have relied upon the copy of ration card and the same is marked as Ex.P.10. On 15 MVC.NO.310/2016 SCCH-18 perusal of copy of Ex.P.10, it shows that, the Food and Civil Supplies department has issued the said documents in the month of November 2014, wherein, the age of the deceased is shown as 36 years in the year 2014 .
On the other hand, the contention of the respondent No.2 is that, the said document is created for the purpose of present case as the age of the deceased is shown in copy of PM report as 50 years as on the date of accident and as such, the same has to be considered as age of the deceased. On perusal of Ex.P.7 i.e. copy of PM report, wherein, the age of the deceased is shown as 50 years as on the date of accident. But as stated above that, the copy of ration card produced by the petitioner was issued "in the month of November 2014, whereas the accident has occurred in the month of December 2015". Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, the contention of the respondent No.2 is that, the ration card produced by the 16 MVC.NO.310/2016 SCCH-18 petitioners is created one and it is not acceptable one. Further as stated above that, the ration card produced by the petitioners is an old document one and as such, the said document is acceptable one. Further as stated above that, in the ration card, the age of the deceased is shown as 36 years in the month of November 2014 and the same is considered as age of the deceased, then it is clear that, as on the date of accident, the deceased was 38 years. Hence, the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 15.
25. Further to prove the occupation and income, the petitioners have not produced any documents. On the other hand, on perusal of copy of inquest panchanama, wherein the occupation of the deceased mentioned as Coolie. Considering the above facts and in the absence of positive documents regarding the income of the deceased, I am of the opinion that, if the 17 MVC.NO.310/2016 SCCH-18 income of the deceased is considered as Rs.8,000/-p.m., certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
26. Further as stated above that, there are 2 dependents. Hence, if 1/3rd of the income of deceased shall be deducted towards her personal expenses, then the income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,333/-p.m. and the same is taken as income of deceased certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
27. The income of the deceased is considered as Rs.5,333/-p.m. (after deduction) and the multiplier 15 is applied, then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,59,940/-. (Rs.5,33X12X15). For the above reason, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.9,60,000/-under the head of loss of dependency.
27. Further the petitioner No.1 being the husband of deceased and as such, he is entitle for compensation of Rs.25,000/-under the head of consortium. Further the 18 MVC.NO.310/2016 SCCH-18 petitioners are entitle for compensation of Rs.30,000/-under the head of loss of love and affection and they are also entitle for compensation of Rs.25,000/-under the head of loss of estate and they are entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of transport of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses.
Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,70,000/-under the following heads.
Compensation heads Compensation amount Towards loss of dependency Rs. 9,60,000/-
Towards loss of estate Rs. 25,000/- Towards transportation of dead body, Rs. 30,000/-
funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses Towards Love and affection Rs. 30,000/-
Towards loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs. 10,70,000/-
19 MVC.NO.310/2016
SCCH-18
28. LIABILITY: On perusal of contents of petition and contents of objection statement, it reveals that, respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the alleged car bearing registration No.KA-01-Z-0967 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 said car. Hence, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the alleged vehicle is liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,70,000/- with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Hence, I answer the issue No.4 in the partly affirmative.
29. Issue No.5: In view of my findings on issue No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following: 20 MVC.NO.310/2016
SCCH-18 O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioners U/S 166 of MV Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 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.2 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 & 2 are entitled for compensation amount of Rs.5,35,000/- each.
Out of the above compensation amount awarded to the petitioner No.1 & 2, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-each shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner No.1 and 2 in any nationalized/schedule 21 MVC.NO.310/2016 SCCH-18 bank of their choice for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner No.1 and 2 through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to stenographer, directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 27th day of October 2016).
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE List of witnesses examined for petitioner's side:
PW-1: Narasaiah List of documents exhibited for petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex-P2 True copy of Panchanama
Ex-P3 True copy of seizer panchanama
Ex-P4 True copy of hand sketch
22 MVC.NO.310/2016
SCCH-18
Ex-P5 True copy of MVA report
Ex-P6 True copy of Inquest panchanama
Ex-P7 True copy of PM report
Ex-P8 True copy of wound certificate
Ex-P9 True copy of charge sheet
Ex-P10 Notarized copy of ration card
List of witnesses examined for respondents' side:-
-None-
List of documents exhibited for respondents' side:
-Nil-
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM.