Bangalore District Court
Kallakuri Ramasireesha vs The New India Assurance on 3 November, 2016
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY. SCCH-14
PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.7018/2007
Dated this the 30th day of November 2016
Petitioner/s : 1. Kallakuri Ramasireesha, 27
years, w/o late Chevendra
Sudhakar,
2. C.Lakhmi Satvika, 9 months,
d/o late Chevendra Sudhakar,
since minor rep.by her
mother/natural guardian 1st
petitioner
3. Chevendra Srivenkateswarao,
58 years, s/o Chevendra,
4. C.Lakshmi Kumari, 55 years,
w/o Chevendra
Srivenkateshwarao,
All are r/a c/o Vijayakumar.Y,
No.29/1, B-101, temple tree
apartment, Kanakapura road,
J.P.Nagar 6th phase, Bangalore-78.
And: Permanent address at SFA,
Kohinoor Apartments Central Bank
Street, Kalanagar, Vijayawada,
Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-
520010.
V/s (By pleader Sri JR)
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.7018/2007
Respondent/s 1. The New India Assurance
Co.Ltd., No.29, RAN complex,
Paramathi Road, Namakkal-
637001.
2. R.Pari, age major by age, S/o
S.M.Ramasamy, Chikbajana
Mandir Street, Sarjapur,
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore
district.
3. Ubedulla, 51 years, s/o Abdul
Sattar, Jedarpet road, Anekal
Town, Bangalore district.
(R1- By pleader Sri EIS,
R2-Exparte
R3-By pleader Sri SSB)
XVI ADDL.JUDGE & MACT,
Court of Small Causes,
Bangalore.
SCCH-14 3 MVC No.7018/2007
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation for the death of C.Sudhakar in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
The petitioners are the wife, children and parents of the deceased C.Sudhakar who was aged 33 years, was a staff consultant in Oracle India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. On 11.06.2007 at about 08.30 am, the deceased was proceeding on Honda Activa motorcycle bearing No.KA-01-Y-2457 on the service road parallel to Hosur road, near Vasundara petrol Bunk at Bommanahalli, at that time, Private Bus bearing No.KA-05-AC- 1444 driven by its driver from north to south on Hosur road in a rash and negligent manner without abiding traffic rules and regulations, suddenly turned on to the service road and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from behind. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and the bus ran over his head, as a result of which, he died on the spot. The dead body was taken to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore wherein post mortem was conducted. The petitioners have conducted funeral ceremony. Due to sudden death of C.Sudhakar, the petitioners have lost their only source of income since the deceased was the only earning member of the family. Further the petitioners have lost love and affection of the deceased. Madivala Traffic police have registered Cr.No.257/2007 against the driver of Private Bus bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The respondents are the insurer, owner and driver of the said bus and are liable to pay compensation. Hence, the SCCH-14 4 MVC No.7018/2007 petitioners have sought for awarding compensation of Rs.2,25,45,000/- with cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of notice, the respondent No.1 has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed written statement. The respondent No.3 remained absent in spite of service of notice and hence, he was placed exparte at the first instance. Notice was not serviced to the respondent No.2. Hence, notice was directed against him by substitute method i.e., by paper publication. In spite of publication of citation in the news paper, the respondent No.2 remained absent and hence, he is placed exparte. The respondent No.2 has denied the case of the petitioners as false and contended that the petition is not maintainable. He has admitted the issuance of policy in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of Bus bearing No.KA- 05-AC-1444, but he has contended that the said bus was not involved in the said accident, that the accident has not occurred in the manner as stated in the petition, that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the deceased who tried to come to main road from service without showing any signal and without observing on coming vehicles on the main road, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of insured vehicle and he did not try to take turn to service road, but he was going straight in the main road, that the petitioners have managed to get the charge sheet filed against the driver of insured vehicle, that the deceased has contributed to the cause of the alleged accident to a greater extent, that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is fanciful, speculative, exorbitant and highly disproportionate besides being without any basis, that the driver of insured vehicle was not holding a valid and SCCH-14 5 MVC No.7018/2007 effective driving license on the date of accident, that the owner of the said vehicle was aware of said fact and has willfully and consciously allowed such person to drive the vehicle and as such, there is breach terms and conditions of the policy, that the vehicle was not having FC and permit on the date of accident and as such, he is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition with cost.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the death of the deceased was caused in an accident arising out of the use of private bus bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444, 11.06.2007 at about 08.30 am.,?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order?
5. During the evidence, the petitioners have examined the petitioner No.1 and two witnesses as PW-1 to 3 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 17. The respondent No.1 has examined two witnesses as RW-1 and 2 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to 10. After hearing the arguments, this court vide judgment dated 08.10.2009, has partly allowed the petition directing the respondent No.1 to deposit Rs.30,68,000/- with cost and interest @ 6% pa., from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and award, the petitioners have preferred MFA SCCH-14 6 MVC No.7018/2007 No.2186/2010 and the respondent No.1 has preferred MFA No.5083/2010. Hon'ble High Court was pleased to club both the matters and after hearing both the parties, Hon'ble court vide Judgment dated 16.04.2015 has set aside the judgment and award passed by this court and remanded the matter for fresh disposal by giving opportunity to both parties for adducing further evidence.
6. After receiving records, the matter was restored to its original number. The petitioner, respondent No.1 and 3 have appeared before the court through their respective counsel. The respondent No.3 has filed his written statement denying the averments of the petition as false and contended that the petition is not maintainable, that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is enormously high. He has admitted that he was driving Bus bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444 on the date of accident and contended that he was holding a valid driving license with badge on the date of accident, that the respondent No.2 has insured the said bus with the respondent No.1 which was a comprehensive policy and it was valid on the date of accident, that the accident has occurred due to careless riding of motorcycle by the deceased who was riding his motorcycle without abiding traffic rules. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition as against him.
7. On the basis of pleadings, the court has framed recast issues as earlier issue No.1 was not reflecting negligence aspect. The recast issues are as under:
SCCH-14 7 MVC No.7018/2007Recast issues
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Chevendra Sudhakar s/o Chevendra Venkateswarrao died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 11.06.2007 at about 08.30 am, Near Vasundhara Petrol bunk, Bommanahalli Service road, Hosur road, Bangalore, arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of private bus bearing No.KA-05-AC-
1444?
2. Whether the respondent no.1 proves that the driver of bus bearing no.KA-05-AC-
1444 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What Order or Award?
8. The parties were given opportunity to lead further evidence. The petitioners have examined two witnesses as PW-3 and 4 and got marked documents as Ex.P18 to 21. The respondent No.1 has examined four witnesses as RW-4 to 7 and got marked documents as Ex.R13 to 31. The respondent No.3 has examined himself as RW-3 and got marked documents as Ex.R11, 12 and 32.
9. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the respondent No.1 has filed written arguments and relied upon the following rulings;
1. MFA.No.6761/2011 (BAGICL Vs Smt.Vanajavasu & Ors) SCCH-14 8 MVC No.7018/2007
2. 2015 ACJ 2280 (Mukesh Khosla Vs Pradeep Kaur & ors)
3. 2015 ACJ 2067 (NIACL Vs Vasdev Kalra & Ors)
4. 2013 ACJ 2129 (UIICL Vs Sujata Arora & Ors)
5. AIR 2007 SC 1563 (1) (NICL Vs Laxmi Narain Dhut)
6. MFA No.2596/2007 () I have gone through the said rulings and perused the records.
10. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In negative.
Issue No.3 : In affirmative, for Rs.89,60,000/-
From the respondent No.1.
Issue No.4 : As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
11. ISSUE NO.1: This is a case of death. The petitioners are claiming to be the LRs and dependents of the deceased Chevendra Sudhakar. They are claiming compensation from the respondents stating that said Sudhakar died due to injuries sustained by him in RTA which has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444. The respondents are the insurer, owner and driver of said bus. The respondent no.1 and 3 have contested the matter, whereas the respondent no.2 remained exparte. The respondent no.1 and 3 have denied the case of the petitioners as false and contended that the deceased died due to his own negligence and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of bus. They have denied the involvement of Bus bearing No.KA-05- AC-1444, but they have impliedly admitted the occurrence of SCCH-14 9 MVC No.7018/2007 accident and death of the deceased in the said accident by making following pleadings:
The respondent no.1:
"The driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444 had not tried to take turn to service road and the said vehicle was going straight in the main road and deceased had come in contact with the vehicle bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444"
The respondent no.3:
" ..... the accident was caused due to his careless riding of his two wheeler"
12. It is an admitted fact that the respondent no.3 was driving Bus bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444 at the time of accident, that the accident has occurred on road leading towards Hosur, that the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.KA-01-Y-2457. The respondent no.1 has put forward a defence that the accident has occurred on Hosur main road in which the insured vehicle was moving in straight direction and the motorcycle was ridden by the deceased from service to main road without observing the movement of vehicles on the main road. Absolutely, there is no evidence to substantiate the said defence of the respondent no.1. RW-1 to 7 have not deposed about it. On the contrary, RW-3:Ubidulla who is the driver of Bus bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444 has stated in his examination-in-chief itself that the accident has occurred on the service road of Hosur main road. PW-1 and 3 have deposed that the accident has occurred on the service road and not on the main road. Police records at Ex.P-1 to 7 disclose that the accident has occurred on the service road, that the motorcycle was going in service road and SCCH-14 10 MVC No.7018/2007 the bus was driven from main road to service road in the place of accident. Thus, there remains no doubt that the accident has not occurred on Hosur main road, but it has occurred on its service road, that the deceased did not enter the main road from service road, but the bus was driven from main road to service road which resulted in the accident.
13. PW-1: Kallakuri Ramasireesha is not an eye witness to the accident, but her evidence as to death of Sudhakar due to accidental injuries is admissible and believable. P.M. Report at Ex.P-7 confirms the death of Sudhakar due to injuries caused to him in the accident. Evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 and 3 regarding accident and death of Sudhakar. Copies of police records at Ex.P-1 to 7 support the version of PW-1 to 3. RW-1, 3 and 4 have impliedly admitted the death of Sudhakar due to accidental injuries. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the deceased Sudhakar died due to injuries sustained by him in road traffic accident.
14. The police records namely, complaint, FIR, Charge sheet, spot panchanama, sketch and IMV report are at Ex.P-1 to 6 which collectively reveal that Madivala Traffic police have registered Cr.No.257/07 on 11.6.2007 at 9.15 a.m., on the basis of information given by PW-3: Samiulla, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of Bus bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304A of IPC. There was no delay in lodging complaint. The deceased died on the spot. PW-3 has deposed about it. He is an eye witness to the accident. He was present at the time of drawing panchanama. IMV report discloses that both the SCCH-14 11 MVC No.7018/2007 vehicles were damaged on the relevant point of time. Brake system of both the vehicles was in order. The accident was not due to mechanical defects of the vehicles. It means, the accident should have been occurred due to negligence of the deceased or of the respondent no.3 or of both. There is no direct and believable evidence as to occurrence of accident due to negligence of the deceased. On the contrary, evidence of PW-1 and 3 is corroborated by the police records at Ex.P-1 to 7. There is nothing on record to believe that the investigation done by the police is defective or collusive. PW-3:Samiulla is the first informant. His evidence is as per the averments of complaint at Ex.P-1. Spot panchanama makes it clear that the accident has occurred on service road. Both the vehicles were damaged. There is no explanation from the respondent no.1 and 3 as to causing of damages to Bus bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444. Front portion of bus and rear portion of motorcycle were damaged which indicate that the bus has dashed against the motorcycle from behind. The sketch at Ex.P-5 discloses that both the vehicles were proceeding in the same direction i.e., from north to south, that prior to accident, that the respondent no.3 was driving Bus bearing No.KA- 05-AC-1444 on main road, whereas the deceased was riding his motorcycle on service road. The accident has occurred when the driver of the bus driven his vehicle suddenly towards left and taken his vehicle on the service road from main road. If he has taken his vehicle on the service road with little care and caution, the accident would not have occurred. The driver of the bus would have stopped the vehicle by applying brakes. No brake marks are appearing on the road. It indicates that there was no attempt by the driver of the bus to avoid the accident. It is pointed out that the motorcycle was ridden SCCH-14 12 MVC No.7018/2007 on the right side of the road. Sketch confirms the same. But, it is a service road meant for going towards south. There is another service road on the other side of main road meant for going towards north. So, it was not mandatory for the deceased to ride his vehicle on the left portion of the road. The accident has occurred when the driver of the bus suddenly took his vehicle on the service road from main road. Charge sheet is prima facie evidence as to manner of accident and negligence of the driver of bus for the occurrence of accident. There is no oral or documentary evidence as to sole or contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It means, the accident was the result of sole negligence on the part of the driver of bus i.e., the respondent no.3. It is pointed out that the petitioners have failed to prove that the deceased was holding a valid licence to ride motorcycle. But, it is to be noted that PW-3 has mentioned in complaint that he came to know about the name of the deceased through driving licence available with him. He has deposed about the said fact. Oral evidence of PW-1 and 3 is corroborated by the contents of Ex.P-1 to 7 which collectively establish the case of the petitioners as to death of Sudhakar and cause for his death. The respondent no.1 and 3 have failed to prove their defence and to disprove the case of the petitioners regarding manner of accident. Hence, I hold that the deceased died due to accidental injuries and the accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver of Bus bearing No.KA-05-AC- 1444. Consequently, I answer the issue in affirmative.
15. ISSUE NO.2: The respondent no.1 has specifically contended that the driver of Bus bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said bus on SCCH-14 13 MVC No.7018/2007 the date of accident, that the respondent no.2 was knowing that his driver was not holding a valid licence to drive the bus and in spite of it, he has willfully and consciously allowed the driver to drive his bus and as such, he has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent no.3 has pleaded that he was holding a valid driving licence to drive the bus on the said date. The petitioners have denied the fact regarding driving licence of the respondent no.3 as alleged by the respondent No.1 by necessary implication. The respondent no.1 has examined two of his officers as RW-1 and 4 and examined Transport officers and officials as RW-2, 5 to 7 and got marked documents as Ex.R-1 to 10, 13 to 31 to prove his defence. The respondent no.3 has examined himself as RW-3 and got marked documents as Ex.R-11 and 12 to prove his pleading as to driving licence. He was permitted to lead secondary evidence as to his licence and he has produced copy of his driving license book which is marked as Ex.R-32. The petitioners have also examined PW-4 and got marked documents as Ex.P-18 to 21 to prove that the respondent no.3 was holding a valid licence on the date of accident.
16. RW-1:Mariaraj and RW-4: Surya Prakash have deposed as per the defence of the respondent no.1. They have stated that the respondent no.3 was the driver of Bus bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444 and he was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the bus on the date of accident, that the licence held by the respondent no.3 was a fake licence and its renewal by competent authority does not make it valid, that the respondent no.2 was aware that the respondent no.3 was not holding a valid driving licence and his licence was fake and in spite of it, he allowed the respondent no.3 SCCH-14 14 MVC No.7018/2007 to drive his vehicle. However, they have admitted the issuance of policy in favour of the respondent no.2 in respect of Bus bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444 and its validity on the date of accident. They have denied the suggestions given to them by the counsel for the petitioners and for the respondent no.3 as false. However, RW-4 has admitted that investigator has reported that records pertaining to 1982 series are missing regarding driving licence of the driver of insured vehicle. Missing of records does not mean that no licence was issued to the respondent no.3 by the said RTO.
17. RW-2:Raghavendra Prasad is a clerk in Jayanagar RTO and he has produced endorsement regarding renewal of licence of the respondent no.3 and deposed in that regard. The said endorsement is marked as Ex.R-5. Similar document issued by the same RTO is at Ex.R-3. He has stated that the said driver was authorized to drive LMV, MGV, HGV and motor car and he was not authorized to drive heavy passenger vehicle, that licence will be renewed after verifying original DL. He has admitted that said licence was renewed from his office. He has shown ignorance as to whether the driver was having badge to drive bus or not.
18. RW-5: Neelesh is senior clerk of Thane RTO and he has deposed about issuance of reply issued as per Ex.R-15 to application at Ex.R-14. He has produced letter of RTO, authorization and copy of ID which are marked as Ex.R-27 to 29. He has stated that licence number is wrongly mentioned in Ex.R-27 and 28. In cross examination, he has stated as under:
SCCH-14 15 MVC No.7018/2007"Ex.R20 now shown to me is issued by different RTO office i.e., RTO Andheri West. Its code is MH-02.
I can not say that since entry regarding
licence bearing no.MH-04-19820009369 is
spoiled in manual register, it is not
computerized. I can not say from which serial number to which serial number the entries are in manual register which I brought today because register is spoiled.
It is true to suggest that since the register is spoiled, the entries are not computerized and that is why I am unable to say that whether licence bearing no.MH-04-19820009369 was issued to Ubaidulla or not.
It is true to suggest that badge will be issued after issuance of driving licence".
19. On perusal of evidence of RW-5, it reveals that register pertaining to driving licence of particular serial number is spoiled and that is why they were not computerized, that since there is no entry in computers, RTO, Thane is unable to confirm that Licence bearing no.MH-04-19820009369 was issued to the respondent no.3 or not. The inability of RTO to produce document regarding said licence and to confirm about licence of the respondent no.3 can not be construed that the respondent no.3 was not holding licence and he was not issued any licence by Thane RTO.
20. RW-6: Sachin is Sr.Clerk of Mumbai (West) RTO and he has deposed about DL No.82/W/9369 and stated that said licence was SCCH-14 16 MVC No.7018/2007 issued to Bawar Lal Panna Lal Jain and not to the respondent no.3. He has stated about production of authorization, copy of DL register which are marked as Ex.R-30 and 31. Translation of Ex.R-30 is at Ex.R-30(a). He has further stated about application of the respondent no.1 as per Ex.R-19 and issuance of reply by his office as per Ex.R-20 and endorsement issued by his office as per Ex.R-21. In cross examination, he has stated that Ex.R-11 is not issued by his office, but it is issued by Thane, RTO. On perusal of evidence produced by the respondent no.3, it reveals that he has not obtained licence from Mumbai (West) RTO. The licence shown in Ex.R-19, 20 and 31 is pertaining to Bawarlal and not to the respondent no.3. But, it is to be noted that the respondent no.3 has not contended that he has obtained licence from Mumbai (West) RTO with DL no.82/W/9369. The licence as contended by the respondent no.3 is MH04 19820009369 and 82/THR/9369. Thus, evidence of RW-6 and documents produced by him are pertaining to a different licence. Hence, his evidence and contents of Ex.R-19 to 21, 30 and 31 are not helpful to the respondent no.1 to prove his defence.
21. RW-7:Ananda Gowda is ARTO of Jayanagar RTO and he has deposed that driving licence of Ubedulla was renewed by their office from 23.6.2004 to 22.6.2007, that a letter will be sent to licensing authority regarding renewal of license. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has tried to extract from him that they have renewed a fake licence. But, admissions of RW-7 do not indicate that they have renewed a fake licence. On the other hand, RW-7 has stated as under during cross examination:
SCCH-14 17 MVC No.7018/2007"It is true to suggest that a licence can be renewed only on production of original licence. It is true to suggest that we started issuing smart cards after computerization. Such smart cards will be issued only the original driving licence is surrendered. We keep the surrendered original licence for one year after issuance of smart card. It is true to suggest that licence no.82/MH2/9369 was originally issued by RTO of Maharastra.
It is true to suggest that a person holding a licence to drive HTV with badge is authorized to drive a bus. It is true to suggest that in order to get a badge one has to produce his driving licence".
22. The above admissions and provisions of Sec.15 of MV Act reveal that a person seeking for renewal of licence has to submit application for the same along with fee, medical certificate and original licence, that on submission of the same, the concerned RTO after verifying the records, renew the licence and send a letter to original licensing authority regarding renewal, that a person holding licence to drive HGV with badge is authorized to drive a bus. Therefore, evidence of RW-7 is no way helpful to the respondent no.1 to establish that the licence of the respondent no.3 was fake and it was renewed without proper verification and without following proper procedure. On the contrary, evidence of RW-7 supports the contention of the petitioners. It can be presumed U/s 114 of Evidence Act that official acts have been performed regularly. The burden was SCCH-14 18 MVC No.7018/2007 upon the respondent no.1 to rebut the said presumption. Evidence adduced by the respondent no.1 is not sufficient to rebut the said presumption. There is nothing on record to believe that official acts were not performed regularly and there was an irregularity in the renewal of licence of the respondent no.3.
23. RW-3: Ubedulla is the respondent no.3 and he has deposed as per his defence. He has stated that he was holding valid driving licence to drive a bus as on the date of accident. In cross examination, he has stated as under:
"Original driving licence book is taken by concerned RTO while issuing driving licence card.
It is true to suggest that I obtained licence from Maharastra RTO and later renewed in Bangalore. It is true to suggest that at that time, my licence number has been changed. It is true to suggest that earlier the licence was issued for HGV with badge for driving the bus. It is true to suggest that my HGV licence was valid upto 22.06.2007. It is true to suggest that my licence was first issued in Thana, Mumbai.
Witness volunteers that he got renewed licence by producing original licence.
It is false to suggest that I have obtained badge to drive PSV bus on 11.02.2011 as per Ex.R11. Witness volunteers that he was having SCCH-14 19 MVC No.7018/2007 Maharastra badge since 1987 which was cancelled while issuing Ex.R11".
24. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has tried to elicit from him that his licence is fake and DL number stated by him was issued to Bawarlal, that he did not produce original licence before RTO Electronic city, Bangalore while getting his licence renewed. He has stated that original licence book was obtained by Electronic city, Bangalore and he was given smart card. Copy of licence book is at Ex.R-32. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has pointed out the difference in names, addresses and DL numbers in Ex.R-11 and 32. It is to be noted that there is little correction in the name, but both names are one and the same. RW-3 has stated that original licence was obtained in Maharashtra and it was renewed in Karnataka and as such, DL number is changed. He has further stated that he got renewed the licence with change of address. So, differences between Ex.R-11 and 32 are quite natural. Such differences do not take away the credibility of RW-3. The admissions and denials obtained from RW-3 are not sufficient to believe that the licence held by him is fake and it was renewed without noticing its nature and without obtaining original licence book. He has categorically stated that he obtained first licence in 1982 and obtained PSV bus licence w.e.f. 26.3.1987 and he got it renewed from 23.6.2004 to 22.6.2007. There is nothing on record to disbelieve his evidence. The respondent no.3 is holding the said licence till this day. Competent authority has not impounded his driving licence. He is using it till this day and it indicates that the licence held by the respondent no.3 is not fake, but it is a genuine licence.
SCCH-14 20 MVC No.7018/200725. PW-4: Jagadeesha has produced DL extract of the respondent no.3 and shown his inability to produce original licence book stating that it was destroyed as per rules. He has produced authorization letter, DL extract, endorsement and notification regarding destruction of records which are marked as Ex.P-18 to 21. The said documents corroborate the evidence of PW-4. There is nothing on record to disbelieve his evidence. The respondent no.1 made attempt to extract from him that licence of the respondent no.3 was renewed without getting original licence book, that intimation regarding renewal of his licence was not sent to original licensing authority. He has stated that the respondent no.3 has obtained endorsement regarding driving of bus on 11.2.2011.
26. DL extract at Ex.P-19 and Ex.R-23 disclose that the respondent no.3 was holding driving licence from 15.12.1982, that he was holding driving licence to drive a MCWG, LMV, LMV-GV, Transport vehicles and PSV bus, that he has obtained licence to drive a bus w.e.f.11.2.2011. Ex.P-20 and 21 disclose that the Electronic city RTO has renewed licence of the respondent no.3 by obtaining original licence book and issued smart card and his transport license is valid up to 20.8.2016, that original licence book was destroyed by the concerned RTO as per rules and as such, original licence book is not available. Since, original licence book is not available and can not be produced, the respondent no.3 was permitted to produce secondary evidence of said licence and RW-3 has got marked copy of licence book which is at Ex.R-32. There is no evidence to believe that Ex.R-32 is copy of fake licence and it is created for this case, that SCCH-14 21 MVC No.7018/2007 original of it was not submitted to RTO while getting smart card, that RTO has renewed the said licence without following proper procedure.
27. Ex.R-2 is 'B' register extract and it reveals that the respondent no.2 is the owner of Bus bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444. Ex.R-3 and 5 are issued by Jayanagar RTO to the effect that the respondent no.3 was holding licence to drive a HGV, MGV, LMV and Motor car, that his licence was issued by RTO, Patna and it was renewed for 3 years from 23.6.2004 to 22.6.2007. The respondent no.1 has made correspondences and obtained replies regarding licence of the respondent no.3 which are at Ex.R-6 to 10, 14 to 22, 25 to 27. These correspondences are not helpful for the respondent no.1 to prove his defense. Ex.R-11 is consistent with DL extract at Ex.P-19. It also reveals that the respondent no.3 has obtained licence to drive PSV bus w.e.f 11.2.2011. But, Ex.R-12 is copy of badge bearing no.12496. Same number is mentioned in copy of licence book at Ex.R-32 with date as 26.3.1987. This indicates that the respondent no.3 was having a badge from 26.3.1987. Admission of RW-7 reveals that a person holding a badge with license to drive heavy transport vehicle is authorized to drive a bus. There is nothing on record to believe that badge of the respondent No.3 was cancelled after 1987 and before 2011. Evidence of RW-7 discloses that licence of the respondent no.3 was renewed for 3 years from 23.6.2004. The period of renewal indicates that its renewal was pertaining to transport vehicle. The renewal will be for all categories of vehicles. There is nothing on record to believe that his licence was renewed for a particular class of vehicle. There no doubt that the licence of the SCCH-14 22 MVC No.7018/2007 respondent no.3 was renewed for 3 years w.e.f. 23.6.2004. It was valid till 22.6.2007. The accident has occurred on 11.6.2007. It means, the respondent no.3 was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive a bus on the date of accident. Hence, I am of the opinion that the respondent no.3 has succeeded to prove his defence as to driving licence, but contentions raised by the respondent no.1 are improbable and unacceptable. Hence, I reject the same and hold that the respondent no.1 has failed to prove his defence. The rulings relied upon by him can not be applied to this case. Consequently, I answer the issue in negative.
28. ISSUE NO.3: The petitioners are claiming compensation from the respondents stating that they are the LRs and dependents of the deceased Sudhakar. The respondent no.1 and 3 have generally denied the status of the petitioners, but they have not elicited anything from PW-1 to disbelieve her evidence as to relationship between the petitioners and the deceased. The petitioners have produced certificate of marriage which is marked as Ex.P-9 and it reveals that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the petitioner no.1 on 5.2.2004. Name of the petitioner no.3 is shown as father of the deceased in SSC certificate, copy of it is at Ex.P-8. There is no evidence to disbelieve the said marriage certificate. Though, there is no document regarding relationship between the petitioner no.1, 2 and 4 with the deceased, but oral evidence of PW-1 regarding their relationship with the deceased is believable. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners are the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased Sudhakar. They are Lrs of the deceased. The age of the petitioner no.2 to 4 indicates that they were depending SCCH-14 23 MVC No.7018/2007 upon the income of the deceased. The petitioner no.1 is the wife and she is always deemed to be dependent of the deceased. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are the dependents of the deceased and are entitled for compensation under all heads.
29. PW-1:Kallakuri Ramasireesha has deposed about the age, occupation and income of the deceased Sudhakar. Bare denials were elicited from her in cross examination. The petitioners have produced copy of SSC marks card, of pay slips, of Form no.16 and of Saral form to prove the age, occupation and income of the deceased which are marked as Ex.P-8, 10 to 12, 14 to 17. Date of birth of the deceased is shown as 27.8.1973 in SSC marks card at Ex.P-8. Same date is mentioned in pay slips at Ex.P-10, 14 and 15. Hence, I believe that the deceased was born on 27.8.1973. It means, he was aged 33 years. There is no oral and documentary evidence regarding date of birth or age of the deceased contrary to the contents of SSC marks card and pay slips. Hence, I hold that the deceased was aged 33 years as on the date of accident. Appropriate multiplier for the said age is 16.
30. PW-2: Venugopal is the employer of the deceased. His evidence corroborates the version of PW-1 as to occupation and income of the deceased. He has produced pay slips and Form no.16 pertaining to the deceased which are marked as Ex.P-14 to 16. These documents are consistent with the pay slips and Form no.16 at Ex.P-10 and 11. No doubtful circumstances are brought out during the cross examination of PW-1 and 3 to disbelieve their evidence as to occupation and income of the deceased. On perusal of pay slips for SCCH-14 24 MVC No.7018/2007 the month of April and May-2007, it reveals that the salary of the deceased was not fixed, but it was fluctuating. Hence, we can not decide the income of the deceased on the basis of one or two months pay slips. Form no.16 for the year 2005-06 discloses the annual income of the deceased as Rs.4,87,281/-, whereas Form no.16 for the year 2006-07 reveals his income as Rs.5,79,666/-. There is nothing on record to believe that the income of the deceased was boosted in Form no.16 for the year 2006-07. Moreover, Form no.16 will be issued by the employer. Hence, I am of the opinion that income shown in Form no.16 at Ex.P-11, 16 and 17 is believable. The accident has occurred in June 2007. The income shown in Form no.17 was for the period ended on 31.3.2007. There was a gap of only 2 to 2½ months between date of Ex.P-17 and the date of accident. There is no evidence that the salary of the deceased was drastically increased during the said gap. Hence, I am of the opinion that if the income shown in Ex.P-17 is considered as the income of the deceased, it will meet the ends of justice.
31. Ex.P-17 discloses the income of the deceased as Rs.5,79,666/-. Professional tax was Rs.2,400/-. The said income attracts income tax and income tax for the said amount comes to Rs.86,279/-. After deduction of PT and IT, income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,90,987/- which can be rounded to Rs.4,90,000/- p.a., The deceased was aged 33 years. He was having fixed income and his salary has seen constant hike from time to time. Hence, future prospects of the deceased would be 50% of the said income. After addition of said amount towards future prospects, gross income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,35,000/- p.a., The petitioners were SCCH-14 25 MVC No.7018/2007 depending upon the income of the deceased. They were 4 in number. Hence, 1/4th amount shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. After deduction of said amount, net income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,51,250/- which can be rounded to Rs.5,50,000/- p.a., The petitioners have lost their dependency. They have lost love and affection and estate of the deceased. They have spent amount for the transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. There is no evidence as to quantum of amount spent by them for those purposes. However, the petitioners are entitled for reasonable amount towards said expenses. The petitioner no.1 has lost marital bliss in young age. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1 Loss of dependency Rs.88,00,000/-
(550000X16) 2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 60,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs. 60,000/-
4 Transportation of dead Rs. 20,000/-
body and funeral
expenses
5 Loss of consortium Rs. 20,000/-
TOTAL Rs.89,60,000/-
The petitioners are further entitled for interest. The case is of the year 2007. Hence, I deem it just to award interest @6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
32. The respondents are the insurer, owner and driver of Bus bearing No.KA-05-AC-1444. The accident was due to sole negligence of the driver of said vehicle. Therefore, the respondent no.1 and 2 are SCCH-14 26 MVC No.7018/2007 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The respondent no.3 is not a proper or necessary party. The respondent no.2 is vicariously liable to pay the compensation amount and interest. The respondent no.1 has contended that the respondent no.2 has violated the policy conditions viz., his driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence and as such, he is not liable to indemnify the respondent no.2. But, the respondent no.1 has failed to prove his defence. Hence, the respondent no.1 is liable to indemnify the respondent no.2 and to compensate the petitioners as stated above. The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation amount with proportionate interest as under:
The petitioner No.1 Rs.39,60,000/- The petitioner No.2 Rs.30,00,000/- The petitioner No.3 Rs.10,00,000/- The petitioner No.4 Rs.10,00,000/-
Hence, I answer the issue as above.
33. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.89,60,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.SCCH-14 27 MVC No.7018/2007
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioners a compensation of Rs.89,60,000/- with interest. In view of the policy, the respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation amount with proportionate interest as under:
The petitioner No.1 Rs.39,60,000/-
The petitioner No.2 Rs.30,00,000/-
The petitioner No.3 Rs.10,00,000/-
The petitioner No.4 Rs.10,00,000/-
After deposit, Rs.15,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.1, Rs.5,00,000/- each out of the share of the petitioner No.3 and 4 shall be deposited for 3 years in their respective names and entire amount of the share of the petitioner No.2 shall be deposited in her name under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 till she attains majority in any nationalized, scheduled or cooperative bank. Balance amount and interest of the petitioner No.1, 3 and 4 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The claim petition as against the respondent No.3 stands dismissed without cost.
SCCH-14 28 MVC No.7018/2007Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 30th day of November 2016).
(Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE & MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
SCCH-14 29 MVC No.7018/2007ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Kallakuri Ramasireesha PW.2 Venugopal PW.3 Samiulla PW.4 BM Jagadeesha Respondents RW1 Mariaraj RW2 Raghavendra Prasad RW3 Ubidulla RW4 CK Suraya Prakash RW5 Neelesh RW6 Sachin RW7 Anand Gowda ExP1-Complaint ExP2-FIR ExP3-Charge sheet ExP4-Panchanama ExP5-Sketch ExP6 IMV Report ExP7 PM Report ExP8 SSLC marks card of the deceased ExP9 Marriage certificate ExP10 Salary slip ExP11 Form No.16 ExP12 IT acknowledgement ExP13 SSLC marks card of petitioner NO.1 ExP14 Pay slip ExP15 Pay slip ExP16 IT details ExP17 IT details Ex.P18- Authorization Letter Ex.P19- DL extract Ex.P20- Endorsement
Ex.P21- Copy of Govt. Notification with enclosures.
SCCH-14 30 MVC No.7018/2007Respondents:
ExR1-Policy copy ExR2-RC extract ExR3-DL extract ExR4-Copy of notice ExR5-Endorsement of DL ExR6-Letter returned from respondent ExR7-Letter issued to driver ExR8-Letter from insurance company to RTO Thane ExR9-Challan ExR10-Letter to investigator Ex.R11- Copy of Driving Licence Ex.R12- Copy of Badge Ex.R13- Authorisation Letter Ex.R14- Copy of RTI application Ex.R15- Information given by Thane ARTO Ex.R15 (a) - Postal Cover Ex.R16- Copy of RTI application Ex.R17- Postal Receipt Ex.R18- Acknowledgement Ex.R19- Covering letter of RTO Mumbai (Marked subject to production of English or Kannada translate) Ex.R19(a)- English translation of Ex.R19 Ex.R20- Information given by RTO Mumbai Ex.R20(a) - Postal Cover Ex.R21- Endorsement issued by ARTO, Jayanagar, Bangalore. Ex.R22- Endorsement issued by ARTO, Electronic city, Bangalore.
Ex.R23- DL extract of Ubidulla Ex.R23(a) - Postal Cover Ex.R24- B extract of Vehicle no.KA-05-AC-1444 Ex.R25- Copy of RTI application Ex.R26- Postal Receipt Ex.R27-letter of RTO Ex.R28-Authorisation Ex.R29- copy of my Identity Card. Ex.R30 - Authorisation letter Ex.R30(a) - English translation of Ex.R30 Ex.R31 - Copy of DL register Ex.R32 -Copy of licence book XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 31 MVC No.7018/2007
Dt.30.11.2016 P-JR R1-EIS R2-Exparte R3-SSB For Judgment Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.89,60,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioners a compensation of Rs.89,60,000/- with interest. In view of the policy, the respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation amount with proportionate interest as under:
The petitioner No.1 Rs.39,60,000/-
The petitioner No.2 Rs.30,00,000/-
The petitioner No.3 Rs.10,00,000/-
The petitioner No.4 Rs.10,00,000/-
After deposit, Rs.15,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.1, Rs.5,00,000/- each out of the share of the petitioner No.3 and 4 shall be deposited for 3 years in SCCH-14 32 MVC No.7018/2007 their respective names and entire amount of the share of the petitioner No.2 shall be deposited in her name under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 till she attains majority in any nationalized, scheduled or cooperative bank. Balance amount and interest of the petitioner No.1, 3 and 4 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The claim petition as against the respondent No.3 stands dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 33 MVC No.7018/2007AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.7018/2007 Dated this the 30th day of November 2016 Petitioner/s : 1. Kallakuri Ramasireesha, 27 years, w/o late Chevendra Sudhakar,
2. C.Lakhmi Satvika, 9 months, d/o late Chevendra Sudhakar, since minor rep.by her mother/natural guardian 1st petitioner
3. Chevendra Srivenkateswarao, 58 years, s/o Chevendra,
4. C.Lakshmi Kumari, 55 years, w/o Chevendra Srivenkateshwarao, All are r/a c/o Vijayakumar.Y, No.29/1, B-101, temple tree apartment, Kanakapura road, J.P.Nagar 6th phase, Bangalore-78.
And: Permanent address at SFA, Kohinoor Apartments Central Bank Street, Kalanagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-
520010.
V/s (By pleader Sri JR) Respondent/s 1. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., No.29, RAN complex, Paramathi Road, Namakkal-
637001.
SCCH-14 34 MVC No.7018/20072. R.Pari, age major by age, S/o S.M.Ramasamy, Chikbajana Mandir Street, Sarjapur, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore district.
3. Ubedulla, 51 years, s/o Abdul Sattar, Jedarpet road, Anekal Town, Bangalore district.
(R1- By pleader Sri EIS, R2-Exparte R3-By pleader Sri SSB) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the
injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor
Accident by vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.89,60,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioners a compensation of SCCH-14 35 MVC No.7018/2007 Rs.89,60,000/- with interest. In view of the policy, the respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation amount with proportionate interest as under:
The petitioner No.1 Rs.39,60,000/- The petitioner No.2 Rs.30,00,000/- The petitioner No.3 Rs.10,00,000/- The petitioner No.4 Rs.10,00,000/-
After deposit, Rs.15,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.1, Rs.5,00,000/- each out of the share of the petitioner No.3 and 4 shall be deposited for 3 years in their respective names and entire amount of the share of the petitioner No.2 shall be deposited in her name under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 till she attains majority in any nationalized, scheduled or cooperative bank. Balance amount and interest of the petitioner No.1, 3 and 4 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The claim petition as against the respondent No.3 stands dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
SCCH-14 36 MVC No.7018/2007
By the
__________________________________
Petitioner/s Respondent
No.1 No.2
__________________________________
Court fee paid on petition 10-00
Court fee paid on Powers 01-00
Court fee paid on I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee _____________________________
Total Rs. ---------------------------------------
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR