Bangalore District Court
In 1. Shabana vs In 1. The Head Master on 26 August, 2021
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF AUGUST 2021
PRESENT : Smt. Prabhavati M. Hiremath,B.A., L.L.B.(Spl.)
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No. 7262/2019 C/W M.V.C. No. 7263/2019
PETITIONERS IN 1. Shabana, D/o. Chand Pasha,
MVC 7262/2019: W/o. Nasir Ahmed,
Aged about 36 years.
2. Afreen, D/o. Nasir Ahmed,
Aged about 13 years.
3. Mehar, D/o. Nasir Ahmed,
Aged about 11 years.
4. Gowsiya, D/o. Nasir Ahmed,
Aged about 7 years.
5. Nawaz, D/o. Nasir Ahmed,
Aged about 7 years.
6. Zeenath Bi, W/o. Mahamed Rasul,
D/o. Rasheed, Aged 63 years.
7. Mahamed Rasul, S/o. Karim Sab,
Aged about 69 years.
Petitioners No.2, 3, 4 & 5 are minors,
Represented by their natural guardian
mother Shabana.
SCCH - 1 2 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
All are residing at
Islampura, Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
(By Sri. T. Mohan, Advocate)
PETITION
ERS IN MVC 1. Sabeena, W/o. Sanaulla,
7263/2019: Aged about 40 years.
2. Naveed, S/o. Sanaulla,
Aged about 22 years.
3. Amreen Taj,
D/o. Sanaulla,
Aged about 19 years.
4. Shahio @ Shahid,
S/o. Sanaulla,
Aged about 14 years.
Since minor, represented by
Natural guardian his Mother Sabeena.
5. Khurshid Bi,
W/o. Syed Mohiddin,
Aged about 75 years.
6. Syed Mohiddin,
S/o. Syed Gafar,
Aged about 80 years.
All are residents of
Islampura, Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
(By Sri. T. Mohan, Advocate)
V/s
SCCH - 1 3 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
RESPONDENTS IN 1. The Head Master,
BOTH CASES: Sri Vidya Public School,
Huchanapalya, Huskur Road,
Dasanapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
(Owner of the vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA52A8830)
(By Sri. Nagaraj Damodar, Advocate)
2. The Manager,
Cholamandalam M/s. General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.04, 9th Floor, Level - 06,
Golden Heights Complex,
59th 'C' Cross Road, 4th 'M' Block,
Industrial Suburb, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
(policy No.3373/0059420/000/00
valid from 1142019 to 1042020)
(By Sri.B.N.Sreekanta Swamy,
Advocate)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two petitions are filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 by the legal representatives of the
two deceased persons died in the same accident.
2. In both petitions the mode of occurrence of
SCCH - 1 4 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
accident is pleaded as under:
On 19.11.2019 at about 3.20 pm., deceased Nasir
Ahmed was traveling in Auto bearing No.KA05AA1231
from Huskur cross towards Bethanagere, when they were
proceeding near R.M.C.Yard, Pillahalli, Dasanapura Hobli,
Bangalore North, at that time, vehicle bearing No.KA52A
8830 came from Huskur in a high speed in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the Auto. Nasir
Ahmed who is rider of the Autorickshaw died on the spot.
Body was shifted to Government Hospital after conducting
post mortem to the petitioners in MVC 7262/2019.
It is the case of the petitioners in MVC 7263/2019
that, on that day in the same autorickshaw deceased
Sanaulla was traveling, due to the accident he sustained
grievous injuries and shifted to Government Hospital,
Nelamangala but in the hospital he succumbed to injuries.
On conducting post mortem dead body was received by
them.
It is the case of the both case petitioners that by
SCCH - 1 5 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
spending of Rs.1 lakh they have performed the funeral and
final rituals of the deceased. Due to negligent act of driving
on the part of the driver of the school van owned by
respondent No.1 insured with respondent No.2 accident
occurred, therefore petitioners are entitled for
compensation.
3. It is the case of the petitioners in MVC
7262/2019 that petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioners No.2
to 5 are children, petitioners No.6 and 7 are the parents of
the deceased and entitled for compensation of
Rs.42,00,000/. It is the case of the petitioners in MVC
7263/2019 that petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioners No.2
to 4 are children, petitioners No.5 and 6 are the parents of
the deceased and they have entitled total compensation of
Rs.30,00,000/.
4. After service of notice of these two petitions,
respondent No.1 and 2 appeared through their respective
advocates.
The brief facts of the written statement filed by
SCCH - 1 6 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
respondent No.1 in both petition are as follows:
The entire averments in the petition including all
columns are denied in toto. The mode of occurrence of
accident is disputed. It is specifically contended that at the
time of accident a school van bearing No.KA52A8830
came from Huskur side in high speed and dashed to the
autoricksahw is denied. The driver of the school van is
qualified and experienced driver holding a valid driving
licence to drive heavy passenger vehicle, there is no
negligent act on the part of the school van driver and
school van is insured with the second respondent as on the
date of accident therefore respondent No.1 is not liable to
pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.
The brief facts of the written statement filed by
respondent No.2 in both petition are as follows:
The entire averments in the petition are denied in toto
by stating that petitioners be put to strict proof of the
same. School van is insured with second respondent but
liability of the second respondent is subject to terms and
SCCH - 1 7 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
conditions of the policy.
First respondent being the owner of the vehicle has
not complied with the mandatory requirements of the Motor
Vehicles Act by furnishing information and documents.
The petitioners have claimed exorbitant compensation there
is no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the
school van and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. From the above pleadings of the parties, the
following issues has been framed by my learned Predecessor
in Office:
Issues in M.V.C.No.7262/2019:
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that the deceased
succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle
Accident that occurred on 19.11.2019 at about
3.20 pm., at R.M.C Yard, Pillahalli, Dasanapura
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, within the
jurisdiction of Madanayakanahalli police station
on account of rash and negligent driving of the
Srividya Public School Van bearing registration
No.KA52A8830 by its driver when the
deceased was traveling in the auto bearing
reg.No.KA05AA1231 ?
2. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the
accident has occurred on account of rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the
SCCH - 1 8 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA05AA1231?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation ? If so, how much and from
whom ?
4. What order?
Issues in M.V.C.No.7263/2019:
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that the deceased
succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle
Accident that occurred on 19.11.2019 at about
3.20 pm., at R.M.C Yard, Pillahalli, Dasanapura
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, within the
jurisdiction of Madanayakanahalli police station
on account of rash and negligent driving of the
Srividya Public School Van bearing registration
No.KA52A8830 by its driver when the
deceased was traveling in the auto bearing
reg.No.KA05AA1231 ?
2. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the
accident has occurred on account of rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the
autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA05AA1231?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom ?
4. What order?
6. As per the order passed by this Tribunal on
25.02.2021 both petitions were clubbed and parties are
directed to adduce common evidence in MVC 7262/2019.
In support of the petitioners' case, petitioner No.1 in MVC
SCCH - 1 9 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
7262/2019 is examined as PW 1. Petitioner No.1 in MVC
7263/2019 is examined as PW.2 and got marked in all 24
documents as Ex.P.1 to 24. In support of the respondents
case, respondents have not led any oral evidence, with
consent policy was marked as Ex.R.1.
7. Heard arguments on both sides.
8. For the reasons stated in the subsequent
paragraphs, I answer the above Issues as under:
1) Issue No.1 in the affirmative in both petitions
2) Issue No.2 in the negative in both petitions
3) Issue No.3 Accordingly,
4) Issue No.4 As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. ISSUE NO.1 AND 2 IN BOTH CASES: It is the
case of the petitioner in both petitions that only due to rash
or negligent act of driving on the part of the school van
driver accident occurred. To substantiate the same the
petitioners have relied on the police records as PW.1 and 2
are not eye witness to the incidents. On the contrary it is
SCCH - 1 10 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
the case of the respondent No.2 that due to rash or
negligent act of driving on the part of the Auto driver
accident occurred. The substantiate the same they have
not adduced any oral evidence but relied on the police
records and cross examination of PW.1 and 2.
10. Both petitioners and respondents have not
disputed the contents of spot panchanama, spot sketch and
IMV report. The documents relied by petitioners are Ex.P.1
- FIR with complaint, Ex.P.2 - Spot panchanama, Ex.P.3 -
IMV report, Ex.P.4 - spot sketch, Ex.P.7 - chargesheet.
From going through the above said police records it is clear
that, on 19.11.2019 itself on the basis of complaint lodged
by one Hanumanthe Gowda.H.K case is registered against
the driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA52A8830.
Panchanama was conducted as per Ex.P.2 on 19.11.2019
itself and at the time of conducting spot panchanama rough
sketch was prepared as per Ex.P.4.
11. From going through the spot sketch it is clear
that road is SouthNorth. It is not in dispute that van was
SCCH - 1 11 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
proceeding from Huskur side and autorickshaw was
proceeding from RMC New building. In the police records
and from the evidence it is not in dispute that prior to the
accident both vehicles were proceeding on opposite
direction. The width of the road at the scene of offence is
20 feet, as per the traffic rules vehicles are required to move
on the left side of the road, the left side of the road to van
driver is eastern side of the road as he was proceeding for
school towards Makali as autorickshaw proceeding left side
from Makali towards Huskur his left side of the road is
western side of NorthSouth road, the scene of offence is
towards western side of the 20 feet width road. From this it
is clear that the van driver came to the extreme right side of
the road and dashed to the autorickshaw. If he as
proceeded towards left side of the road there is no chance of
occurrence of accident. From the undisputed document
Ex.P.2 - spot panchanama, Ex.P.4 - spot sketch, the
petitioners proved that only due to rash or negligent act of
driving on the part of the school van driver accident
SCCH - 1 12 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
occurred. It is also not in dispute that on completion of
investigation charge sheet is filed against the school van
driver.
12. In this case there is no dispute regarding fact
that due to injuries sustained by the driver and inmate in
the accident the driver Nasir Ahmed died on spot, inmate of
the autorickshaw died in the hospital. The petitioners have
produced Ex.P.5 - Inquest panchanama of Nasir Ahmed
and his post mortem as per Ex.P.6. Inquest panchanam of
Sanaulla as per Ex.P.16 and his post mortem as per
Ex.P.17. Therefore petitioners have proved that due to
injuries sustained in the accident Nasir Ahmed and
Sanaulla have succumbed to injuries.
13. On the contrary the respondent No.2 failed to
prove that due to rash or negligent act of driving on the part
of deceased accident occurred. Hence, I answer issue No.1
in the Affirmative and issue No.2 in the Negative.
14. ISSUE NO.3 IN MVC 7262/2019: In this case
petitioners have claimed total compensation of Rs.42 lakhs
SCCH - 1 13 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
on various head. It is the case of the petitioner that,
deceased Nasir Ahmed was working as Painter and earnng
Rs.30,000/ per month. During the course of cross
examination of PW.1 she has answered that earlier he was
driving autorickshaw and he was a painter. Except the oral
evidence of PW.1 to prove the exact income of the deceased
at the time of his death nothing is on record. As there is
no material on record as the deceased has got a fixed salary
or self employed therefore the future prospectus is not
considered. Considering the date of accident notional
income is required to be taken to assess the loss of
dependency Rs.13,000/ is taken as notional income as
accident occurred in the year 2019. From the oral evidence
of PW.1 and Aadhar cards of petitioners produced by the
PW.1 it is clear that petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioners
No.2 to 5 are the children, petitioners No.6 and 7 are the
parents of the deceased. The petitioners No.2 to 5 are the
minor daughters. Therefore, petitioners are depending on
the earning of the deceased. Considering the number of
SCCH - 1 14 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
dependents i.e., 7 petitioners 1/5 th of the income is
deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. 1/5 th
of Rs.13,000/ comes to Rs.2,600/. Therefore the monthly
income available for calculations of loss of dependency is
(Rs.13,000/ () Rs.2,600/) Rs.10,400/. To determine the
loss of dependency we are required to convert the monthly
income into the annual income which comes to
Rs.1,24,800/ (Rs.10,400/ X 12). As per the Aadhar card
produced by the petitioners of deceased i.e., Ex.P.8 his birth
year is 1984. Therefore during 2019 he was 35 years old.
15. As per the principles laid down by their
Lordships in 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarla Verma Vs Delhi
Transport Corporation), the multiplier applicable to the
present case is 16. Therefore under the head of loss of
dependency, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of
(Rs.1,24,800/ X 16) Rs.19,96,800/ under the head Loss
of dependency.
16. Under the conventional heads, as per the
principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case, the petitioner
SCCH - 1 15 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
No.1 is entitled for consortium of Rs.40,000/, the
petitioners No.6 and 7 are entitled for filial consortium of
Rs.40,000/ each, the petitioners are entitled to
Rs.15,000/ towards head funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/
towards head loss of estate.
17. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Total
1. Loss of dependency Rs.19,96,800/
2. Towards Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/
3. Towards Funeral Rs. 15,000/
Expenses
4. Towards Loss of Rs. 40,000/
Consortium to petitioner
No.1
5. Towards Loss of filial Rs. 80,000/
consortium to petitioner
No.6 and 7
(Rs.40,000/ x 2)
Total Rs.21,46,800/
18. ISSUE No.3 IN MVC No.7263/2019: It is the
case of the petitioner that, prior to the accident deceased
was earning Rs.30,000/ per month as he is doing a coolie
SCCH - 1 16 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
work daily earning Rs.1,000/. Except oral evidence of
PW.2 there is no material on record to prove the exact
income of the deceased. Considering the year of accident
notional income of Rs.13,000/ is taken as income of the
deceased. As there is no material to hold that deceased
was self employed or has a fixed salary. Therefore future
prospectus of the deceased is not considered. From the
oral evidence of PW.2 petitioners proved that petitioner
No.1 is the wife, petitioners No.2 to 4 are children,
petitioners No.5 and 6 are parents of the deceased.
Thereby deceased Sanaulla died leaving behind 6
dependents. Therefore 1/4th of the income is deducted
towards personal expenses of the deceased. 1/4 th of
Rs.13,000/ comes to Rs.3,250/ therefore an amount of
Rs.9,750/ is available to calculate the loss of dependency.
By converting annual loss by multiplying 12 which comes
to Rs.1,17,000/. As per Ex.P.18 birth year of deceased
Sanaulla is of the year 1973. Therefore as on the date of
death he was 46 years old.
SCCH - 1 17 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
19. As per the principles laid down by their
Lordships in 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarla Verma Vs Delhi
Transport Corporation), the multiplier applicable to the
present case is 13. Therefore under the head of loss of
dependency, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of
(Rs.1,17,000/ X 13) Rs.15,21,000/ under the head Loss
of dependency.
20. Under the conventional heads, as per the
principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case, the petitioner
No.1 is entitled for consortium of Rs.40,000/, the
petitioners No.5 and 6 are entitled for filial consortium of
Rs.40,000/ each, the petitioners are entitled to
Rs.15,000/ towards head funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/
towards head loss of estate.
21. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Total
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 15,21,000/
2. Towards Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/
SCCH - 1 18 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019
3. Towards Funeral Rs. 15,000/
Expenses
4. Towards Loss of Rs. 40,000/
Consortium to petitioner
No.1
5. Towards Loss of filial Rs. 80,000/
consortium to petitioner
No.5 and 6
(Rs.40,000/ x 2)
Total Rs.16,71,000/
22. In view of findings on issue No.1 in the
Affirmative. The respondent No.1 being the owner and the
respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle
are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners in both cases with interest at 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till realization. Hence, Issue No.3 and in
both the petitions are answered accordingly.
23. ISSUE No.4 IN BOTH THE CASES: In view of
my discussion made as above, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
M.V.C. No.7262/2019 SCCH - 1 19 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019 The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part against the respondent No.1 and 2.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.21,46,800/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
The amount of compensation is apportioned to the petitioner No.1 at Rs.6,46,800/, petitioner No.2 to 5 at Rs.3,00,000/ each and to the petitioner No.6 and 7 at Rs.1,50,000/ each.
Out of the compensation amount apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in her name in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner No.1 under proper identification. Entire amount apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2 to 5 shall be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in their respective names in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank on choice of SCCH - 1 20 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019 petitioner No.1 till they attain their majority. Petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw the periodical interest for the need of minor children. Entire amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner No.6 and 7 under proper identification.
M.V.C. No.7263/2019 The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part against the respondent No.1 and 2.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,71,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
The amount of compensation is apportioned to the petitioner No.1 at Rs.6,21,000/, petitioner No.2 to 4 at Rs.2,50,000/ each and to the petitioner No.5 and 6 at Rs.1,50,000/ each.
Out of the compensation amount apportioned in favour of the petitioners No.1 to 3, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in their respective names in any SCCH - 1 21 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019 of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner No.1 to 3 under proper identification.
Entire amount apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.4 shall be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in his name in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank on choice of petitioner No.1 till he attain his majority. Petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw the periodical interest for the need of minor children i.e. petitioner No.4. Entire amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner No.5 and 6 under proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in each case.
Original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.7262/2019 and its copy in another case.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcription thereof, revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on 26.08.2021) (PRABHAVATI M.HIREMATH) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
SCCH - 1 22 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019 ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Shabana P.W.2 : Sabeena
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 : FIR along with complaint Ex.P2 : Spot mahazar Ex.P3 : IMV report Ex.P4 : Spot sketch Ex.P5 : Inquest report Ex.P6 : PM report Ex.P.7 Chargesheet Ex.P.8 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of deceased Nasir Ahmed Ex.P.9 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of petitioner No.1 in MVC 7262/2019 Ex.P.10 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of petitioner No.2 Ex.P.11 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of Petitioner No.3 Ex.P.12 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of petitioner No.4 Ex.P.13 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of petitioner No.5 Ex.P.14 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of petitioner No.6 Ex.P.15 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of petitioner No.7 Ex.P.16 Inquest report Ex.P.17 PM report Ex.P.18 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of SCCH - 1 23 MVC 7262/19 & 7263/2019 deceased Sanaulla Ex.P.19 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of petitioner No.1 Ex.P.20 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of petitioner No.2 Ex.P.21 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of petitioner No.3 Ex.P.22 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of petitioner No.4 Ex.P.23 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of petitioner No.5 Ex.P.24 Notarised copy of Adhaar card of petitioner No.6 Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
None Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 Policy copy
(PRABHAVATI M.HIREMATH)
Chief Judge,
Court of Small Causes &
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T.
Bangalore.
*SR*