Bangalore District Court
Srinivas.A vs United India Ins Co Ltd on 3 February, 2025
KABC020050662023
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH-4
PRESENT: Smt.Gayathri S Kate,
B.Com., LL.B.,
XVIII ADDL., JUDGE & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 03rd day of February-2025
MVC No.999/2023
PETITIONERS: 1. Srinivas A,
S/o Arumugam N,
Age: 61 years.
2. Kala J,
W/o Srinivas
Age: 54 years.
3. S Vishal,
S/o Late Priya S,
Age: 10 years.
4. S. Vimal,
S/o Late Priya S,
Age: 10 years.
Petitioner No.3 and 4 are Minors
SCCH-4 2 MVC No.999/2023
represented by his grandmother
and Natural guardian Kala J.
All are residing at No. 82, 8th
cross, Indiranagar Slum near
Modi Hospital, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560010.
(By Sri.LN., Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENTS: 1. United India Insurance
Company Ltd.,
MVC Hub, Krishi Bhavan,
Hudson circle,
Nrupatunga Road,
Bangalore-560001.
(By Sri.B.T.R.M., Adv.,)
2.Hasan
S/o Khasim Sab,
Age: Major,
W No.14, Near School Adapurpet
Manvi, Raichur-584123.
(Exparte)
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition U/s 166 of the Motor vehicles Act 1989, claiming compensation amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., from date of accident till date of realization, in respect of SCCH-4 3 MVC No.999/2023 death of Sri.Gowtham S who succumbed to injuries on 23.01.2023 in Road Traffic Accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner are summarized as under:
On 23.01.2023 at about 10.45 p.m., the deceased was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02- JT-2612, near Ayappa Swamy Temple, New BL Road, Bangalore. At that timer one car bearing Reg.No.KA-02- AF-6979 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased vehicle. Due to the impact of accident, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries to head.
3. Immediately shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital and further shifted to Apollo Hospital wherein he was treated as inpatient. But the best treatment given by the doctor, the said deceased on 25.01.2023 at 4.30 a.m., succumbed to the injuries The petitioners have incurred SCCH-4 4 MVC No.999/2023 a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards transportation, funeral and other expenses.
4. Prior to the date of the accident, the deceased Gowtham.S was very hale and healthy and he was Customer Solution Agent at Paypal India Pvt. Ltd.,. He was earning Rs.65,742/- per month from said avocation and he used to contribute all his earnings towards maintenance of his family. Due to sudden death of deceased, the petitioners have suffered mental shock and agony and their lives have come to stand still. The petitioner No.1 is the father of the deceased and petitioner No.2 is the mother and petitioner No.3 & 4 are brother of the deceased and they have lost love and affection of the deceased and their lives have become miserable.
5. The respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the SCCH-4 5 MVC No.999/2023 petitioners. Hence, prays to award compensation of Rs.1,25,00,000/- with interest.
6. After registration of the petition. Notices were issued against respondents. Inspite of service of the notice, the respondent No.2 has not appeared before this court. Hence, after due service of notice against the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 is placed exparte. The respondent No.1 has appeared through its counsels and has filed its written statement. Further denied the petition averments in its written statement. The insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident and the liability if any is subjected to terms and conditions of the policy. Further denied the expenses incurred for funeral ceremony. Further denied the age of the deceased, avocation and income of the said deceased. The compensation has claimed by the petitioners are highly excessive and exorbitant. They prays to dismiss the petition.
SCCH-4 6 MVC No.999/2023
7. In order to substantiate the claim petition, the petitioner No.1 is examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. Further petitioner examined Anantha Lakshmi Raghawan, Director of Human Resource, Pyapal India Pvt. Ltd., as PW-2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P13 to Ex.P16 and also examined eye witness by name Nikhil C as PW-3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P17 and Ex.P18. The respondent No.1 has examined its official as RW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R3. Further the Sameer is examined as RW.2 and no documents marked on his behalf.
8. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9. Upon considering rival contentions raised by the parties, this tribunal has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Gowtham S S/o Srinivas SCCH-4 7 MVC No.999/2023 died in the Motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.01.2023 at about 10.45 p.m., near Ayappa Swamy Temple, New BL Road, Bangalore, due to the rash and negligence driving of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AF-6979 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
4. What order or award?
10. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1: In the affirmative,
Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Issue No.3: Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.4: As per the final orders for
the following:-
REASONS
ISSUE NO.1 :
11. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on 23.01.2023 at about 10.45 p.m., the deceased was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-JT- 2612, near Ayappa Swamy Temple, New BL Road, SCCH-4 8 MVC No.999/2023 Bangalore. At that timer one car bearing Reg.No.KA-02- AF-6979 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased vehicle. Due to the impact of accident, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries to head.
12. To substantiate the petition averments, petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 12 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. Ex.P.1 FIR and complaint which reveals that Srinivas.A has lodged complaint on 24.01.2023 against the driver of the respondent No.2 offender vehicle i.e., Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AF-6976. Upon the complaint, the police have registered FIR for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. The Ex.P.8 is the Inquest report which clearly discloses that, Gowtham.S. has died on 25.01.2023 in a Road Traffic Accident. Ex.P 4 is the spot mahazar along with sketch which speaks about the occurrence of accident. Ex.P.7 is the PM report SCCH-4 9 MVC No.999/2023 which reveals that, deceased has succumbed to the injuries in the said accident. Ex.P5 is the IMV report. Ex.P.6 is the charge sheet which reveals that, police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of the offender vehicle i.e., Car bearing Reg.No.KA- 02-AF-6979. Further petitioner examined eyewitness by name Nikil.C has examined as PW-3 and got marked document at Ex.P.17 and 18.
13. The petitioner was subjected to cross- examination by learned counsel for respondent. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1 and 3 nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW.1 and 3, so as to disbelieve his version.
14. The Respondent No.1 has examined its official as RW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. RW.1 has reiterated the contents of written statement filed by the respondent No.1 in his examination in chief. RW.1 was subjected to cross-examination by learned SCCH-4 10 MVC No.999/2023 counsel for petitioner during the course of cross- examination of petitioner he had admitted that he has deposed his evidence on the basis of documents submitted by him. He does not have any personal knowledge about the case. The policy and driving license of the insured vehicle was in force as on the date of occurrence of the accident. The police have filed charge sheet against the driver of our insured vehicle.
15. Further the Sameer, Driver has examined as RW.2 and no documents marked on his behalf. During the course of cross-examination RW.2 has admitted that he has seen the victim vehicle in the right side mirror of his vehicle. He has further deposed that he has not produced the complaint copy filed against the deceased person. Further it is admitted that the police have filed charge sheet against him and he has not challenged the said charge sheet before the court.
SCCH-4 11 MVC No.999/2023
16. The learned counsel for respondent has strongly argued that the driving license of the deceased is not sustainable under the eye of law. The learned counsel for the respondent emphasized on contributory negligence by the deceased who has not worn the head gear at the time of the accident, wearing of head gear is mandatory under the motor vehicle Act. The said fact is admitted by PW.1 in his cross-examination therefore the percentage of contributory negligence may be considered at this stage. It is further argued that the respondents dispute the liability against them and also the income of the deceased who has not submitted income tax return papers before this court except the salary slips. It is also argued that basic salary and HRA shall be considered while calculating the gross income of the deceased and the allowance amount shall not be considered in the same. Further it is argued that the accident has occurred on 23.01.2023 and the deceased has succumbed to the SCCH-4 12 MVC No.999/2023 injuries on 25.01.2023 and Ex.P.11 salary bill for the month of January-2023 reveals that overtime duty amount is not mentioned therefore the gross salary may be taken as per the said salary bill and also argued that special allowance shift allowance may not be considered at this stage. The learned counsel for respondent has submitted memo with citation in MFA No.7074/2016 (MV) decided on 06.12.2017 and has argued that he has successfully proved the non wearing of headgear in the instant case therefore prayed to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased person.
17. Per contra learned counsel for petitioner has submitted memo with number of citations which mainly elicits about consideration of compensation in accident cases irrespective of unavoidable circumstances occurred in said various accident cases. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there are number of citations of Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court where it is SCCH-4 13 MVC No.999/2023 held that compensation amount is to be awarded in motor vehicle accident cases. He has submitted the gist of the relevant citations stating that "not informing the insurer is a defect on the part of the complainant but it is not fatal to the claim" ;
"strict rules of Evidence Act need not be applied in a case of motor vehicle accident to prove rash and negligent driving" ;
"unless it is proved that the rider of the motor cycle was negligent in causing the accident or he has contributed to the accident, only because he has violated the provisions of MV Act. It cannot be held that he has contributed to the accident " ;
"The procedure contemplates that non wearing helmet, is not a ground to denied the compensation" ;
"no deduction can be made from salary except income tax and professional tax".SCCH-4 14 MVC No.999/2023
In MFA No.3459/2021 dated 23.07.2024 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has opined that "non wearing of protective head gear does not negate the right to compensation."
18. Therefore, it is apparent on the face of records that, the respondents have admitted the occurrence of accident and death of deceased has caused due to the rash and negligent drive of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AF-6979. In the absence of any cogent materials from the respondents in this regard. The only inference which has to be drawn is that, the accident in question was the result of the rash and negligent drive of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AF-6979. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2
19. The PW.1 in his evidence has deposed that, his deceased son Gowtham.S was Customer Solution Agent, SCCH-4 15 MVC No.999/2023 Paypal India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru and was earning Rs.65,742/- per month. His son was aged about 30 years and was hale and healthy before the occurrence of accident. Petitioners being mother, father and brother of the deceased Gowtham.S were wholly dependent on the income of the said deceased, he being a sole bread earning member in his family. He has further deposed that, he has spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards funeral and other expenses.
20. Petitioners have averred in the petition that, the petitioner No.1 is the father of the deceased Gowtham.S, Petitioner No.2 is the mother and petitioner No.3 & 4 are the brother of the said deceased. To substantiate the same, PW.1 has produced notarized copies of Aadhar cards along with originals of himself and petitioner No.2 to 4. These documents reflects the relationship of deceased with the petitioners. The oral and documentary evidence led by PW.1 reflects that, SCCH-4 16 MVC No.999/2023 petitioners are the LR's of deceased Gowtham.S. Since, the respondents have not contested the said matter in the evidence led by PW.1. Then the evidence of PW.1 stands unshaken and the same is sufficient to show that petitioners are the LR's of deceased. Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 In the affirmative.
ISSUE No.3:
21. Basically three facts lead to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death as per Sarla Verma Case i.e., (i) age of deceased,
(ii) Income of deceased and (iii) Number of dependents.
(i) Age of deceased: According to the petitioners the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 30 years. As per the aadhar card marked at Ex.P.9, wherein the date of the birth of the deceased mentioned as 24.01.1993, the accident was occurred on 23.01.2023. SCCH-4 17 MVC No.999/2023 So, as on the date of the accident the deceased was aged 30 years.
(ii).Income of the deceased: According to the petitioners deceased Gowtham.S was Customer Solution Agent, Paypal India Pvt. Ltd., and mason and he was earning Rs.65,742/- per month. In this regard the petitioner has examined Anantha Lakshmi Raghavan, Director of Human Resource, Paypal India Pvt. Ltd., has examined as PW-2 and he got marked Ex.P13 to Ex.P16 documents, which reveals that the deceased was earning Rs.65,742/- towards gross earnings and deductions towards professional tax and income tax shall arrive at Rs.4,890/-. Under the circumstances the actual salary of the deceased shall be considered as Rs.60,852/- per month.
22. Loss of dependency: The following issues are to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at loss of dependency, they are SCCH-4 18 MVC No.999/2023
(i) addition/deduction to be made for arriving at the income.
(ii) Deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased.
(iii) The multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
23. As per the decision reported in National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Other reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "if the deceased is below 40 years 40% of the established income of deceased towards future prospectus; an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years; an addition 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as necessary method of computation." Applying the same formula to the case on hand it is clear that, the deceased is entitled for future prospects. In the present case the deceased is aged below 40 years and therefore 40% of the established income of the deceased is assessed towards future prospects. Hence, SCCH-4 19 MVC No.999/2023 the future prospects is determined as Rs.24,340/- (60,852 X 40/100 = Rs.24,340). Therefore the total income of the deceased is determined as Rs. 85,192/- per month (60,852 + 24,340 = Rs.85,192/-).
24. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 to 4 are the dependents of deceased person. As per the the Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and others reported in 2009 ACJ SC 1298 case, Since the deceased was bachelor 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses of the deceased. As such 1/2 amount is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses i.e., Rs.42,596/-. When the said 1/2 amount is deducted from monthly income of the deceased, then the balance amount shall be Rs.42,596/- (Rs.85,192 - Rs.42,596 = Rs.42,596/-). As per the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier to the age of the deceased is 17. SCCH-4 20 MVC No.999/2023 Thus, total loss of income from the deceased comes to (Rs.42,596/- X 12 X 17 =Rs.86,89,584/-). Hence, Loss of dependency is determined as Rs.86,89,584/-.
25. Transportation, Funeral expenses, Loss of Estate, Loss of love and affection and Loss of Consortium:- In so far as the funeral and other expenses are concerned, as per the version of the petitioners they have spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. But they have not produced any documents to substantiate the said version. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Pranaya Sheti and other the Compensation under the heads of transportation, funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium has to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
26. Since, it is settled law in National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Pranay Sethi and others case SCCH-4 21 MVC No.999/2023 reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, that the dependents would be entitled for the transportation of dead body to an extent of Rs.15,000/- with an enhancement at the rate of 10% in every three years. Hence, petitioners are entitled for compensation under this head to the tune of Rs.16,500/- i.e., (15,000 X 10/100 =Rs.1,500/- + Rs.15,000/-).
Further, for funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- with an enhancement at the rate of 10% in every three years. Hence, petitioners are entitled for compensation under this head to the tune of Rs.16,500/- i.e., (15,000 X 10/100 =Rs.1,500/- + Rs.15,000/-).
Like wise for loss of estate to the extent of Rs.15,000/- with an enhancement at the rate of 10% every three years. Hence, petitioners are entitled for compensation under this head to the tune of Rs.16,500/- i.e., (15,000 X 10/100 =Rs.1,500/- + Rs.15,000/-). SCCH-4 22 MVC No.999/2023
Similarly, for loss of love and affection to the extent of Rs.25,000/- with an enhancement at the rate of 10% every three years. Hence, petitioners are entitled for compensation under this head to the tune of Rs.27,500/- i.e., (25,000 X 10/100 =Rs.2,500/- + Rs.25,000/-).
Loss of consortium: it is pertinent to note that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case has directed to award an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards consortium. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has held that, the term "consortium" is compendious of spousal, parental and filial consortium and directed to award amount in all three categories. Hence, in view of the said decisions this tribunal awards under the head of consortium as follows;
(I) Towards filial consortium: the petitioner No.1 to 4 being the parents and brothers are entitled for an SCCH-4 23 MVC No.999/2023 amount of Rs.40,000/- with an enhancement at the ration of 10% in every three years. Hence, petitioner No.1 to 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- each (40,000 X 10/100 =Rs.4,000/- + Rs.40,000/-).
Hence, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
Sl. No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of dependency with Rs. 86,89,584/-
future prospects
2. Transportation of dead body Rs. 16,500/-
3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/-
4. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/-
5. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 27,500/-
6. Loss of filial consortium Rs. 1,76,000/-
7. Medical expenses -NIL-
Total Rs. 89,42,584/-
Hence, the petitioners are entitled for total
compensation award amount of Rs.89,42,584/- which is just and proper.
SCCH-4 24 MVC No.999/2023
27. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 is the insurer and 2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, the respondents No.1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The respondent No.1 being the insurer is bound to indemnify the respondent No.2. Hence, respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to petitioners with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., Accordingly, I answer this issue partly in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.4:-
28. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for total compensation amount of Rs. 89,42,584/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,. from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.SCCH-4 25 MVC No.999/2023
The petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled for the compensation at the ratio of 30:40:15:15.
The respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
Considering the quantum of amount awarded to petitioner No.1, it is ordered to release the entire amount in his favour.
Out of awarded amount of petitioner No.2, 80% shall be released to petitioner No.2 on her proper identification and remaining 20% shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in her name in any Scheduled Bank, for a period of one year.
The entire amount awarded to the petitioners No.3 and 4, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in their names in any Scheduled Bank, till they attain the age of majority.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-. Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 03rd day of February, 2025) (Gayathri S Kate) XVIII ADDL.JUDGE & ACJM Court of Small Causes Bengaluru.SCCH-4 26 MVC No.999/2023
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Sri.Srinivas A
PW.2 Smt.Anantha Lakshmi Raghavan
PW.2 Sri.Nikhil.C
List of documents marked on behalf of the
petitioners:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 True copy of Complainant
Ex.P3 True copy of Requisition filed by the police to add
section 304(a) of IPC
Ex.P4 True copy of Spot Mahazar along with Sketch
Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P6 True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P7 True copy of PM Report
Ex.P8 True copy of Inquest Report
Ex.P9 Notarized copies of Driving Licence and 5 Aadhar
Cards
Ex.P10 Appointment letter
Ex.P11 Pay Slips
Ex.P12 Bank Statement
Ex.P13 Appointment letter of Goutham who was working in our company Ex.P14 Pay Slips Ex.P15 Relieving letter Ex.P16 Service Certificate Ex.P17 The witness has produced notarized copy of Aadhar card Ex.P18 Witness statement SCCH-4 27 MVC No.999/2023 List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW-1 Sri.Prashanth N. G.
RW-2 Sri.Sameer
List of documents marked on behalf of the
Respondents:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 Insurance policy
Ex.R3 Driving Licence extract
XVIII ADDL.JUDGE & ACJM
Court of Small Causes
Bengaluru.