Bangalore District Court
In 1. Smt Gandadevi vs In All The Cases 1. Mohammed Zabi on 26 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: BASAVARAJ CHENGTI., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.2739/2016, 2740/2016 and 2741/2016
Dated this the 26th day of November 2016.
Petitioners in 1. SMT GANDADEVI
MVC No.2739/2016 W/o Late Gunashekara
Aged about 37 years,
2. RAVI
S/o Late Gunashekara
Aged about 17 years
3. SOWMYA
D/o Late Gunashekara
Aged about 15 years
4. DIVYA
D/o Late Gunashekara
Aged about 12 years
5. MANJUNATH
S/o Late Gunashekara
Aged about 10 years
6. RAJA @ PARASURAM
S/o Sengalvarayan
Aged about 65 years
All are R/at No.34, 2nd cross,
Near Basavanna Temple,
Kamalanagar,
Bangalore-560 079.
(By pleader Sri GPS)
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
Petitioners in 1. SMT. PREMA
MVC No.2740/2016 W/o Late Thimmegowda
Aged about 32 years,
2. CHIRANTH.T
S/o Late Thimmegowda
Aged about 3 years,
3. HARSHITH.T
S/o Late Thimmegowda
Aged about 7 years,
Petitioner no.2 and 3 are minors
represented by their natural
guardian mother Prema i..e,
petitioner no.1.
4. JAYAMMA
W/o Thimmaiah
Aged about 50 years,
5. THIMMAIAH
S/o late Channaiah
Aged about 65 years,
All are R/o No.108,
2nd main, 1st cross,
Kere Angala, Kamalanagar,
Bangalore-560 079.
(By pleader Sri GPS)
Petitioners in 1. SMT.ASHA
MVC No.2741/2016 W/o late Lokesh
Aged about 26 years
2. HRUTHIK C.L
S/o late Lokesh
Aged about 2 years,
SCCH-14 3 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
3. LAKSHMAMMA
W/o late Narasimhaiah
Aged about 50 years
All are R/o Chamalapura village,
Bellur Hobli,
Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya District.
V/s
(By pleader Sri GPS)
Respondents in all the cases 1. MOHAMMED ZABI
S/o Mohammed Ahmed
Shajid Mamma Compound,
Kumpala Bypass P.O,
Kotekar, Kanara -South,
Mangalore-575022.
2. UNITED INDIA INS.CO.LTD.,
D.O., 6th floor, Krishi Bhavan,
Nrupathunga road,
Hudson circle,
Bangalroe-560 001.
(R1-By pleader Sri SIM
R2-By pleader Sri BTR)
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 4 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
COMMON JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed these petitions U/Sec.166 of Motor
Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- each with
cost and interest for the death of Gunashekar, Timmegowda and
Lokesh respectively in a road traffic accident. Since, these three
petitions are arising out of the same accident, they are clubbed
together for common trial and for disposal by a common
Judgment.
2. Brief averments of the claim petitions are as
under:
On 28.02.2016 at about 12.00 a.m., the deceased
Gunashekar, Timmegowda and Lokesh were walking on the left
side of foot path on NH-75 Bypass road, near Urkehalli Bridge,
Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk towards Dharmasthala and at that
time, lorry bearing No.KA-19-B-6668 driven by its driver with high
speed, in rash and negligent manner came from Nelamangala side
towards Yadiyur and came to the extreme side of foot path and
dashed against the said deceased from back side. Due to impact,
the said Gunashekar, Timmegowda and Lokesh sustained grievous
injuries and died on the spot. After conducting post-mortem, the
dead bodies of Gunashekar, Timmegowda and Lokesh were handed
over to the petitioners who performed funeral and obsequies
ceremony. The petitioners have spent more than Rs.75,000/- each
towards transportation of dead bodies and funeral ceremony. Prior
SCCH-14 5 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
to the accident, the deceased Gunashekar was hale and healthy,
was aged 40 years, was doing painting and electrical work and was
earning more than Rs.600/- per day. The deceased was leading his
livelihood by maintaining and managing his family from his
income. Due to untimely accidental death of the deceased, the
petitioners in MVC No.2739/2016 have suffered mental agony.
The petitioner no.1 lost her consortium of loving husband, the
petitioner no.2 to 5 lost their father's affection and alleviation
forever and the petitioner no.6 who is the father cannot digest the
incident. Their sufferings are unbearable, unforgettable and
unimaginable forever.
The deceased Thimmegowda was hale and healthy prior to
the accident, was aged 35 years, was running chicken shop and
earning more than Rs.800/- per day. The deceased was leading his
livelihood by maintaining and managing his family from his
income. Due to untimely accidental death of the deceased, the
petitioners are put to mental agony. The petitioner no.1 lost her
consortium of loving husband, the petitioner no.2 and 3 lost their
father affection and alleviation forever and petitioner no. 4 and 5
who are the parents cannot digest the incident. Their sufferings are
unbearable, unforgettable and unimaginable forever.
The deceased Lokesh was hale and healthy prior to the
accident, was aged 30 years, was doing painting and electrical
work and earning more than Rs.600/- per day and he was leading
his livelihood by maintaining and managing his family from his
SCCH-14 6 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
income. Now due to untimely accidental death of the deceased, the
petitioners are put to mental agony. The petitioner no.1 lost her
consortium of loving husband, the petitioner no.2 lost his father
affection and alleviation forever and petitioner no.3 who is the
mother cannot digest the incident. Their sufferings are unbearable,
unforgettable and unimaginable forever.
Kunigal police have registered Cr.No.57/2016 against the
driver of lorry bearing No.KA-19-B-6668 for the offences
punishable U/Sec.279, 337 and 304-A of IPC. The respondents are
the owner and insurer of said lorry and are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioners have sought
awarding for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- each with cost and
interest.
3. In pursuance of the notices, the respondents have
appeared before the Court through their respective counsel and
filed their written statement separately. The respondents have
denied the case of the petitioners as false and contended that the
compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive, exorbitant,
unreasonable and speculative in nature. The respondent no.1 has
admitted that he is the RC owner of lorry bearing No.KA-19-B-
6668 and has contended that his lorry was duly insured with the
respondent no.2 and policy was in force as on the date of accident,
that his driver Suresh Gowda was holding a valid and effective
driving licence on the said date, that if the court comes to a
conclusion in granting any compensation, then the respondent
SCCH-14 7 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
no.2 shall be made liable to pay compensation. The respondent
no.2 has admitted the issuance of the policy in favour of the
respondent no.1 in respect of lorry bearing No.KA-19-B-6668, but
he has contended that the insured and concerned police have
violated the terms and conditions of the policy, that the deceased
were walking on the road without using footpath in a negligent
manner and without observing flow of traffic and as such, they
were sole architects of the accident, that there was no negligence
on the part of driver of insured vehicle. The respondents have
denied the relationship between the petitioners and deceased
persons, the age, occupation and income of the deceased persons.
Hence, they have sought for dismissal of the petitions.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following
issues have been framed:
ISSUES in MVC. 2739/2016
1. Whether the petitioners prove that
Gunashekara S/o Raji @ Parasuram
died due to injuries sustained by him
in an accident occurred on
28.02.2016 at about 12.00 a.m., on
NH-75 Bypass road, Near Urkehalli
Bridge, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District, arising due to rash
and negligent driving of driver of
Lorry bearing No. KA-19-B-6668?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled
for compensation? If so, how much
and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
SCCH-14 8 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
ISSUES in MVC. 2740/2016
1. Whether the petitioners prove that
Thimme Gowda S/o Thimmaiah died
due to injuries sustained by him in an
accident occurred on 28.02.2016 at
about 12.00 a.m., on NH-75 Bypass
road, Near Urkehalli Bridge, Kasaba
Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur
District, arising due to rash and
negligent driving of driver of Lorry
bearing No. KA-19-B-6668?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled
for compensation? If so, how much
and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
ISSUES in MVC. 2741/2016
1. Whether the petitioners prove that
Lokesh S/o Late Narasimhaiah
died due to injuries sustained by
him in an accident occurred on
28.02.2016 at about 12.00 a.m.,
on NH-75 Bypass road, Near
Urkehalli Bridge, Kasaba Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District,
arising due to rash and negligent
driving of driver of Lorry bearing
No. KA-19-B-6668?
2. Whether the petitioners are
entitled for compensation? If so,
how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
SCCH-14 9 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
5. At the instance of the petitioners, the petitions have
been clubbed together for common evidence and for common
disposal. During the evidence, the petitioners in MVC
No.2739/2016 have examined the petitioner no.1 as PW.1 and got
marked documents as Ex.P1 to 13. The petitioners in MVC
No.2740/2016 have examined the petitioner no.1 as PW.2 and got
marked documents as Ex.P14 to 20. The petitioners in MVC
No.2741/2016 have examined the petitioner no.1 as PW.3 and got
marked documents as Ex.P21 to 25. The petitioners in these
petitions have examined one witness as PW.4 and closed their side.
The respondents have not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In all the cases: In Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.2739/2016: In Affirmative.
For Rs.16,30,000/- from the respondent no.2.
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.2740/2016/14: In Affirmative.
For Rs.19,01,000/- from the respondent no.2
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.2741/2016: In Affirmative.
For Rs.17,43,000/- from the respondent no.2.
Issue No.3 :In both cases: As per final order:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 IN ALL THE CASES: These issues
are interlinked and hence, I have taken them together for common
discussion. The petitioners in MVC No.2739/2016 are claiming
compensation for the death of Gunashekara S/o Raja @
SCCH-14 10 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
Parasuram. The petitioners in MVC No.2740/2016 are claiming
compensation for the death of Thimmegowda S/o Thimmaiah. The
petitioners in MVC No.2741/2016 are claiming compensation for
the death of Lokesh S/o late Narasimhaiah. It is their case that the
deceased persons were walking on the left side of footpath on
NH-75 Bypass road, Urkehalli bridge, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal
Taluk, on 28.02.2016 at about 12.00 a.m., and at that time, lorry
bearing No.KA-19-B-6668 driven by its driver with high speed, in
rash and negligent manner from Nelemanagala side towards
Yadiyur, came to the extreme side and dashed against the
deceased persons from back side and caused accident, that due to
impact, the deceased persons sustained fatal injuries and died on
the spot. The respondents are the owner and insurer of said lorry
and they have admitted the accident and death of deceased
persons in the said accident, but they have contended that the
accident has occurred due to negligence of the deceased persons
who were walking on the road without observing movement
vehicles and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of
lorry. The petitioners have examined PW.1 to 4 and got marked
documents as Ex.P1 to 25 to prove their cases. The respondents
have not adduced any evidence, either oral or documentary to
prove their defence and to disprove the case of the petitioners.
9. PW.1:Smt.Gangadevi, PW.2:Smt.Prema and PW.3: Smt.
Asha are one of the petitioners in these petitions and they have
reiterated entire averments of the petitions and stated that the
accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver of lorry
bearing No.KA-19-B-6668 and due to impact, the deceased persons
SCCH-14 11 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
have sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Except bare
denials, nothing is elicited from them in cross examination to
disbelieve their evidence, but all of them have not seen the
occurrence of the accident and hence, their evidence regarding
manner of accident and negligence of the driver of lorry bearing
No.KA-19-B-6668 for the occurrence of the accident is
inadmissible and unbelievable. However, their evidence regarding
causing of fatal injuries to the deceased persons in the accident,
their death due to such injuries is admissible and believable. Copy
of inquest report and PM report of Gunashekar, of Thimmegowda
and of Lokesh are at Ex.P2, 3, 14, 15, 21 and 22 respectively.
These documents corroborate the oral evidence of PW.1 to 3 and
reveal that the said Gunashekara, Thimmegowda and Lokesh died
due to injuries sustained by them in a road traffic accident. The
respondents have not contended that the said persons died due to
some other reasons. Injuries caused to said persons are mentioned
in inquest panchanama and PM report which clearly indicate that
such injuries could be caused in a road traffic accident and the
said injuries have resulted in the death of said persons. Hence, I
hold that Gunashekara, Thimmegowda and Lokesh died due to
injuries sustained by them in a road traffic accident.
10. PW.1 to 3 have stated that the deceased persons have
sustained fatal injuries in an accident arising due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-19-B-6668.
PW.4: Abhijith has supported the version of PW.1 to 3 and stated
that the accident has occurred due to sole rash and negligent
SCCH-14 12 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-19-B-6668. Bare
denials were extracts from him during cross examination. Such
denials are not sufficient to disbelieve his evidence. The said
Abhijith is the first informant in Cr.No.57/2016 of Kunigal police.
Therefore, evidence of PW.4 is acceptable and believable.
11. The petitioners have produced copies of police records
namely FIR with complaint, spot panchanama, vehicle detention
panchanama, sketch, IMV report and charge sheet which are
marked as Ex.P1, 4 to 8. These documents reveal that Kunigal
police have registered Cr.No.57/2016 on 28.02.2016 at 07.30 a.m.,
on the basis of information given by PW.4:Abhijith, investigated the
matter and filed charge sheet against Suresh Gowda, the driver of
lorry bearing No.KA-19-B-6668 for the offences punishable
U/Sec.279, 337 and 304-A of IPC. There was no delay in lodging
complaint. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the
investigation done by the police. Lorry bearing No.KA-19-B-6668
was detained from the place of accident and it was subjected to
IMV inspection. Brake system of the lorry was in order and the
accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the said vehicle.
Copy of sketch at Ex.P6 discloses that the accident has occurred
on the southern portion of the road. The counsel for the
respondent no.2 has argued that since the accident has occurred
on the road, there was contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased persons for the occurrence of the accident. But it is noted
that the road of is 30 feet width and there was sufficient space for
the driver of lorry to proceed further without causing the accident.
SCCH-14 13 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
The deceased persons were on the southern edge of the road and
there was a space of 30 ft on their right side. Brake system of the
lorry was in order. The driver of lorry could have applied brakes
and avoided the accident. It is not the case of the respondents that
the deceased persons have abruptly entered the road without
giving any room for the driver to apply brakes. The respondents
have not examined the driver of lorry to prove the negligence of the
deceased persons. PW.4 is an eye witness and his evidence goes in
favour of the petitioners. Charge sheet filed by the police is relevant
and it supports the version of the petitioners. There is no evidence
to believe that the deceased persons were also negligent and
contributed for the occurrence of the accident. There is nothing on
record to believe that the charge sheet is defective or collusive. The
evidence of PW.1 to 4 and contents of Ex.P1 to 8, 14, 15, 21
and 22 substantiate the averments of the petitions regarding
manner of accident and negligence of the driver of lorry bearing
No.KA-19-B-6668 for the occurrence of the accident. The
respondents have not adduced any evidence to rebut the oral and
documentary evidence produced by the petitioners. Hence, I hold
that the petitioners have succeeded to prove that the deceased
persons died due to accidental injuries and the accident has
occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of lorry bearing
No.KA-19-B-6668. Hence, I answer the issues in affirmative.
12. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.2739/2016: The petitioners
are claiming to be the wife, children and father of the deceased.
The respondents have denied the relationship between the
SCCH-14 14 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
petitioners and the deceased and contended that the petitioners
are not entitled to claim compensation for the death of deceased
Gunashekara. PW-1 Smt. Gangadevi is the petitioner No.1 and she
has stated about the relationship between them and the deceased.
Nothing is elicited from her to disbelieve her evidence. The
petitioners have produced copy of their adhaar cards which are
marked as Ex.P9 to 13. PW-1 has stated in cross-examination that
the petitioner No.6 has 2 children including the deceased, that the
petitioner No.6 was working as a mason, but he is not working now
due to age factor, that he resides with them. She has denied the
suggestion that the petitioners were not depending upon the
income of the deceased. The said denial is not sufficient to
disbelieve the evidence of PW-1. Adhaar cards at Ex.P9 to 13
corroborate the evidence of PW-1 and reveal that the petitioner
No.1 is the wife and the petitioner No.2 to 5 are the children of the
deceased. There is no document regarding relationship between
the petitioner No.6 and the deceased, but Inquest report at Ex.P2
supports the version of PW-1 which reveal that the deceased was
the son of the petitioner No.6. Hence, I am of the opinion that the
petitioners are the LRs and dependents of the deceased
Gunashekara. They are entitled for compensation for the death of
the deceased under all heads.
13. It is pleaded that the deceased was aged 40 years, was a
painter and electrician and was earning Rs.600/- per day. The
respondents have denied the age, occupation and income of the
deceased. PW-1 has deposed about the said facts, but her
SCCH-14 15 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
evidence remained uncorroborated. Age of the deceased is shown
as 40 years in FIR, Inquest report and PM report. His occupation
is mentioned as Painter in inquest report. There is no evidence
regarding the occupation of the deceased as electrician and his
income as Rs.600/- per day. However, the contents of police
records are believable. On the basis of said records, I hold that
the deceased Gunashekara was aged 40 years and was working
as painter. Appropriate multiplier is 15. In the absence of the
positive evidence, his income shall have to be assessed
notionally. There is no evidence regarding nature of painting work
being carried out by the deceased. Under the circumstances, I am
of the opinion that if the income of the deceased is considered as
Rs.8,000/- pm., it will meet the ends of justice. His annual
income comes to Rs.96,000/-. He was aged 40 years at the time
of death. Hence, 30% amount shall have to be added to the
income of the deceased towards future prospects as per ruling of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munnalal Jain case and as per ruling
of Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2015 KAR 3793
(Smt.M.R.Sushma Vs N.Muniraja and Ors). After such addition,
the income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,24,800/- which can be
rounded to Rs.1,24,000/- as professional tax is to be deducted.
There were 6 dependents on the income of the deceased.
Therefore, 1/4th amount shall be deducted towards personal
expenses of the deceased. After deduction of 1/4th amount, net
income of the deceased comes to Rs.93,000/-. The petitioners
have lost their dependency. Their loss of dependency would be
Rs.93,000X15=Rs.13,95,000/-.
SCCH-14 16 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
14. The petitioners have lost love and affection and lost
estate of the deceased. They have spent amount for
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. PW-1 has
deposed that they have spent Rs.8,000/- towards transportation
of dead body and Rs.75,000/- towards funeral expenses. There is
no corroboration to her evidence. In the absence of documentary
evidence, say of PW-1 regarding those expenses can not be
believed. However, the petitioners are entitled for reasonable
amount towards those expenses. The petitioner No.1 has lost
marital happiness due to the death of her husband. Hence, I am
of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for a compensation
of Rs.90,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.90,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation of
dead body and funeral expenses. The petitioner No.1 is further
entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of
consortium. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for just and
reasonable compensation as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,95,000/-
2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 90,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs. 90,000/-
4. Transportation of dead body Rs. 30,000/-
and funeral expenses
5. Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.16,30,000/-
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3238/2015
(arising out of SLP (C) 1865/2014 (Chanderi Devi and Anr., Vs.
Jaspalsingh & Ors.,) and Hon'ble High Court in MFA
No.2326/2016 (Annapurna & Ors., G.Ashawathraya & Anr.,) have
SCCH-14 17 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
held that rate of interest shall be @9% p.a., Hence, I hold that the
petitioner is entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition
till the date of payment. The petitioners are entitled to share the
compensation amount and proportionate interest as under:
The petitioner No.1: Rs.4,80,000/-
The petitioner No.2 to 5 Rs.2,50,000/-each
The petitioner No.6:Rs.1,50,000/-
Liability aspect is discussed separately.
15. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.2740/2016: The petitioners
are claiming to be the wife, children and parents of the deceased.
The respondents have denied the relationship between the
petitioners and the deceased and contended that the petitioners
are not entitled to claim compensation for the death of deceased
Thimmegowda. PW-2 Smt.Prema is the petitioner No.1 and she has
stated about the relationship between them and the deceased.
Nothing is elicited from her to disbelieve her evidence. The
petitioners have produced copy of their adhaar cards and birth
certificate of the petitioner No.2 which are marked as Ex.P16 to 20.
PW-2 has stated in cross-examination that the petitioner No.4
and 5 have only son and two daughters including the deceased
and the daughters are married, that the petitioner No.5 is not
working. She has denied the suggestion that the petitioners were
not depending upon the income of the deceased. The said denial is
not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of PW-2. Adhaar cards at
Ex.P16 to 19 and birth certificate at Ex.P20 corroborate the
evidence of PW-2 and reveal that the petitioner No.1 is the wife and
SCCH-14 18 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
the petitioner No.2 and 3 are the children and the petitioner No.4
and 5 are the parents of the deceased. Inquest report at Ex.P15
supports the version of PW-2. Hence, I am of the opinion that the
petitioners are the LRs and dependents of the deceased
Thimmegowda. They are entitled for compensation for the death of
the deceased under all heads.
16. It is pleaded that the deceased was aged 35 years, was
the proprietor of the chicken shop and was earning Rs.800/- per
day. The respondents have denied the age, occupation and
income of the deceased. PW-2 has deposed about the said facts,
but her evidence remained uncorroborated. Age of the deceased
is shown as 35 years in FIR, Inquest report and PM report. His
occupation is mentioned as businessman in inquest report. There
is no evidence regarding his income as Rs.800/- per day.
However, the contents of police records are believable. On the
basis of said records, I hold that the deceased Thimmegowda was
aged 35 years and was a businessman. Appropriate multiplier is
16. In the absence of the positive evidence, his income shall have
to be assessed notionally. There is no evidence regarding nature
of business being carried out by the deceased. Under the
circumstances, I am of the opinion that if the income of the
deceased is considered as Rs.8,000/- pm., it will meet the ends of
justice. His annual income comes to Rs.96,000/-. He was aged
35 years at the time of death. Hence, 50% amount shall have to
be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects
as per ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munnalal Jain case
SCCH-14 19 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
and as per ruling of Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2015
KAR 3793 (Smt.M.R.Sushma Vs N.Muniraja and Ors). After such
addition, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,44,000/-.
After deduction of professional tax, his annual income comes to
Rs.1,42,000/-. There were 5 dependents on the income of the
deceased. Therefore, 1/4th amount shall be deducted towards
personal expenses of the deceased. After deduction of 1/4th
amount, net income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,06,500/-
which can be rounded to Rs.1.06.000/-. The petitioners have lost
their dependency. Their loss of dependency would be
Rs.1,06,000X16=Rs.16,96,000/-.
17. The petitioners have lost love and affection and lost
estate of the deceased. They have spent amount for
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. PW-2 has
deposed that they have spent Rs.8,000/- towards transportation
of dead body and Rs.75,000/- towards funeral expenses. There is
no corroboration to her evidence. In the absence of documentary
evidence, say of PW-2 regarding those expenses can not be
believed. However, the petitioners are entitled for reasonable
amount towards those expenses. The petitioner No.1 has lost
marital happiness due to the death of her husband. Hence, I am
of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for a compensation
of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.75,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation of
dead body and funeral expenses. The petitioner No.1 is further
entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of
SCCH-14 20 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
consortium. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for just and
reasonable compensation as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.16,96,000/-
2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 75,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs. 75,000/-
4. Transportation of dead body Rs. 30,000/-
and funeral expenses
5. Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.19,01,000/-
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3238/2015
(arising out of SLP (C) 1865/2014 (Chanderi Devi and Anr., Vs.
Jaspalsingh & Ors.,) and Hon'ble High Court in MFA
No.2326/2016 (Annapurna & Ors., G.Ashawathraya & Anr.,) have
held that rate of interest shall be @9% p.a., Hence, I hold that the
petitioner is entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition
till the date of payment. The petitioners are entitled to share the
compensation amount and proportionate interest as under:
The petitioner No.1: Rs.7,01,000/-
The petitioner No.2 & 3 Rs.4,00,000/- each
The petitioner No.4 & 5:Rs.2,00,000/- each
Liability aspect is discussed separately.
18. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.2741/2016: The petitioners
are claiming to be the wife, son and mother of the deceased. The
respondents have denied the relationship between the petitioners
and the deceased and contended that the petitioners are not
entitled to claim compensation for the death of deceased Lokesh.
PW-3 Smt.Asha is the petitioner No.1 and she has stated about the
SCCH-14 21 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
relationship between them and the deceased. Nothing is elicited
from her to disbelieve her evidence. The petitioners have produced
copy of their adhaar cards which are marked as Ex.P23 to 25.
PW-3 has stated in cross-examination that the petitioner No.3 has
3 sons and a daughter. She has denied the suggestion that the
petitioners were not depending upon the income of the deceased.
The said denial is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of PW-3.
Adhaar cards at Ex.P23 to 25 corroborate the evidence of PW-3
and reveal that the petitioner No.1 is the wife, the petitioner No.2 is
the son and the petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased.
Inquest report at Ex.P21 supports the version of PW-3 which
reveals that the deceased was the husband of the petitioner No.1,
father of the petitioner No.2 and son of the petitioner No.3. Hence,
I am of the opinion that the petitioners are the LRs and dependents
of the deceased Lokesh. They are entitled for compensation for the
death of the deceased under all heads.
19. It is pleaded that the deceased was aged 30 years, was a
painter and electrician and was earning Rs.600/- per day. The
respondents have denied the age, occupation and income of the
deceased. PW-3 has deposed about the said facts, but her
evidence remained uncorroborated. Age of the deceased is shown
as 30 years in FIR, Inquest report and PM report. His occupation
is mentioned as Painter in inquest report. There is no evidence
regarding the occupation of the deceased as electrician and his
income as Rs.600/- per day. However, the contents of police
records are believable. On the basis of said records, I hold that
the deceased Lokesh was aged 30 years and was working as
SCCH-14 22 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
painter. Appropriate multiplier is 17. In the absence of the
positive evidence, his income shall have to be assessed
notionally. There is no evidence regarding nature of painting work
being carried out by the deceased. Under the circumstances, I am
of the opinion that if the income of the deceased is considered as
Rs.8,000/- pm., it will meet the ends of justice. His annual
income comes to Rs.96,000/-. He was aged 30 years at the time
of death. Hence, 50% amount shall have to be added to the
income of the deceased towards future prospects as per ruling of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munnalal Jain case and as per ruling
of Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2015 KAR 3793
(Smt.M.R.Sushma Vs N.Muniraja and Ors). After such addition,
the income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,44,000/-. Professional
tax is to be deducted. After such deduction, annual income of the
deceased comes to Rs.1,42,000/-. There were 3 dependents on
the income of the deceased. Therefore, 1/3rd amount shall be
deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. After
deduction of 1/3rd amount, net income of the deceased comes to
Rs.94,666/- which can be rounded to Rs.94,000/-. The
petitioners have lost their dependency. Their loss of dependency
would be Rs.94,000X17=Rs.15,98,000/-.
20. The petitioners have lost love and affection and lost
estate of the deceased. They have spent amount for
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. PW-3 has
deposed that they have spent Rs.8,000/- towards transportation
of dead body and Rs.75,000/- towards funeral expenses. There is
no corroboration to her evidence. In the absence of documentary
SCCH-14 23 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
evidence, say of PW-3 regarding those expenses can not be
believed. However, the petitioners are entitled for reasonable
amount towards those expenses. The petitioner No.1 has lost
marital happiness due to the death of her husband. Hence, I am
of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for a compensation
of Rs.45,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.45,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation of
dead body and funeral expenses. The petitioner No.1 is further
entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of
consortium. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for just and
reasonable compensation as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.15,98,000/-
2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 45,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs. 45,000/-
4. Transportation of dead body Rs. 30,000/-
and funeral expenses
5. Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.17,43,000/-
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3238/2015
(arising out of SLP (C) 1865/2014 (Chanderi Devi and Anr., Vs.
Jaspalsingh & Ors.,) and Hon'ble High Court in MFA
No.2326/2016 (Annapurna & Ors., G.Ashawathraya & Anr.,) have
held that rate of interest shall be @9% p.a., Hence, I hold that the
petitioner is entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition
till the date of payment. The petitioners are entitled to share the
compensation amount and proportionate interest as under:
SCCH-14 24 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16
The petitioner No.1: Rs.8,43,000/-
The petitioner No.2: Rs.6,00,000/-each
The petitioner No.3:Rs.3,00,000/-
Liability aspect is discussed separately.
LIABILITY
21. The respondents are the owner and insurer of lorry
bearing No.KA-19-B-6668. It is held above that the accident has
occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the said lorry.
Therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation and interest to the petitioners as calculated above.
The respondent No.2 has denied his liability to indemnify the
respondent No.1 on the ground that the respondent No.1 has
committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy, but he has
failed to prove his defence in that regard. He has not adduced any
evidence to support his contention that the respondent No.1 has
violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the driver of
insured vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license
on the date of accident. Hence, the respondent No.2 is liable to
indemnify the respondent No.1 and to compensate the petitioners
as stated above. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
22. ISSUE No.3 in both the cases : In view of above
discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners in MVC No.2739/2016, MVC No.2740/2016 SCCH-14 25 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16 & 2741/16 and MVC No.2741/2016 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
[ The petitioners in MVC.No.2739/2016 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.16,30,000/-, the petitioners in MVC No.2740/2016 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.19,01,000/- and the petitioners in MVC No.2741/2016 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.17,43,000/-. They are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petitions till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally is liable to pay compensation of Rs.16,30,000/-, Rs.19,01,000/- and Rs.17,43,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively. In view of policy, the respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners in MVC No.2739/2016 are entitled to share the compensation as under;
The petitioner No.1: Rs.4,80,000/- The petitioner No.2 to 5 Rs.2,50,000/-each The petitioner No.6:Rs.1,50,000/-
The petitioners in MVC No.2740/2016 are entitled to share the compensation as under;
The petitioner No.1: Rs.7,01,000/- The petitioner No.2 & 3 Rs.4,00,000/- each The petitioner No.4 & 5:Rs.2,00,000/- each SCCH-14 26 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16 & 2741/16 The petitioners in MVC No.2741/2016 are entitled to share the compensation as under;
The petitioner No.1: Rs.8,43,000/- The petitioner No.2: Rs.6,00,000/-each The petitioner No.3:Rs.3,00,000/-
IN MVC No.2739/2016:-
After deposit, Rs.1,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.1 shall be deposited for 3 years in her name and entire share of the petitioner No.2 to 5 shall be deposited in their names till they attain majority under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank. Balance amount and interest of the petitioner No.1 and entire share of petitioner No.6 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
IN MVC No.2740/2016:-
After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.1 shall be deposited in her name for 3 years and entire share of the petitioner No.2 & 3 shall be deposited in their names till they attain majority under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank. Balance amount and interest of the petitioner No.1 and entire share of petitioner No.4 & 5 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.SCCH-14 27 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16 IN MVC No.2741/2016:-
After deposit, Rs.3,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.3 shall be deposited for 3 years in their names and entire share of the petitioner No.2 shall be deposited in his name till he attains majority under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank. Balance amount and interest of the petitioner No.1 & 3 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.2739/2016 and copy of the same in MVC.No.2740/2016 and 2741/2016.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 26th day of November 2016).
(Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 28 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS: SCCH-14 PW.1 Gangadevi PW.2 Prema PW.3 Asha PW.4 Abhijith Respondents : Nil Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint Ex.P2 - Copy of Inquest Report Ex.P3 - Copy of PM Report Ex.P4 - Copy of Spot Panchanama Ex.P5 - Copy of Vehicle Detention Panchanama Ex.P6 - Copy of Sketch Ex.P7 - Copy of IMV Report.
Ex.P8 - Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P9 - Copy of Adhaar Card of Gangadevi Ex.P10- Copy of Adhaar Card of Ravi Ex.P11- Copy of Adhaar Card of Sowmya Ex.P12- Copy of Adhaar Card of Divya Ex.P13- Copy of Adhaar Card of Manjunath Ex.P14- Copy of Inquest Panchanama Ex.P15- Copy of PM Report Ex.P16- Copy of Adhaar Card of Prema Ex.P17- Copy of Adhaar Card of Harshith Ex.P18- Copy of Adhaar Card of Jayamma Ex.P19- Copy of Adhaar Card of Thimmaiah Ex.P20- Copy of Birth Certificate Ex.P21- Copy of Inquest Panchanama Ex.P22- Copy of PM Report Ex.P23- Copy of Adhaar Card of Asha Ex.P24- Copy of Adhaar Card of Rithik Ex.P25- Copy of Adhaar Card of Lakshmamma Respondents : Nil XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 29 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16 Dt.26.11.2016 P-GPS R1-SIM R2-BTR For Judgment Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners in MVC No.2739/2016, MVC No.2740/2016 and MVC No.2741/2016 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
[ The petitioners in MVC.No.2739/2016 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.16,30,000/-, the petitioners in MVC No.2740/2016 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.19,01,000/- and the petitioners in MVC No.2741/2016 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.17,43,000/-. They are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petitions till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally is liable to pay compensation of Rs.16,30,000/-, Rs.19,01,000/- and Rs.17,43,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively. In view of policy, the respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners in MVC No.2739/2016 are entitled to share the compensation as under;
The petitioner No.1: Rs.4,80,000/- The petitioner No.2 to 5 Rs.2,50,000/-each The petitioner No.6:Rs.1,50,000/-SCCH-14 30 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16 The petitioners in MVC No.2740/2016 are entitled to share the compensation as under;
The petitioner No.1: Rs.7,01,000/- The petitioner No.2 & 3 Rs.4,00,000/- each The petitioner No.4 & 5:Rs.2,00,000/- each The petitioners in MVC No.2741/2016 are entitled to share the compensation as under;
The petitioner No.1: Rs.8,43,000/- The petitioner No.2: Rs.6,00,000/-each The petitioner No.3:Rs.3,00,000/-
IN MVC No.2739/2016:-
After deposit, Rs.1,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.1 shall be deposited for 3 years in her name and entire share of the petitioner No.2 to 5 shall be deposited in their names till they attain majority under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank. Balance amount and interest of the petitioner No.1 and entire share of petitioner No.6 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
IN MVC No.2740/2016:-
After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.1 shall be deposited in her name for 3 years and entire share of the petitioner No.2 & 3 shall be deposited in their names till they attain majority under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank. Balance amount and SCCH-14 31 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16 & 2741/16 interest of the petitioner No.1 and entire share of petitioner No.4 & 5 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
IN MVC No.2741/2016:-
After deposit, Rs.3,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.3 shall be deposited for 3 years in their names and entire share of the petitioner No.2 shall be deposited in his name till he attains majority under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank. Balance amount and interest of the petitioner No.1 & 3 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.2739/2016 and copy of the same in MVC.No.2740/2016 and 2741/2016.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each. Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 32 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16
& 2741/16 AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.2739/20160 Petitioners 1. SMT GANDADEVI W/o Late Gunashekara Aged about 37 years,
2. RAVI S/o Late Gunashekara Aged about 17 years
3. SOWMYA D/o Late Gunashekara Aged about 15 years
4. DIVYA D/o Late Gunashekara Aged about 12 years
5. MANJUNATH S/o Late Gunashekara Aged about 10 years
6. RAJA @ PARASURAM S/o Sengalvarayan Aged about 65 years All are R/at No.34, 2nd cross, Near Basavanna Temple, Kamalanagar, Bangalore-560 079.
(By pleader Sri GPS) Respondents in all the cases 1. MOHAMMED ZABI S/o Mohammed Ahmed Shajid Mamma Compound, Kumpala Bypass P.O, Kotekar, Kanara -South, Mangalore-575022.
SCCH-14 33 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16& 2741/16
2. UNITED INDIA INS.CO.LTD., D.O., 6th floor, Krishi Bhavan, Nrupathunga road, Hudson circle, Bangalroe-560 001.
(R1-By pleader Sri SIM R2-By pleader Sri BTR) 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, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. ORDER The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners is hereby partly allowed with cost.
[ The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.16,30,000/- and are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petitions till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally is liable to pay compensation of Rs.16,30,000/-with interest to the said petitioners respectively. In view of policy, the SCCH-14 34 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16 & 2741/16 respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation as under;
The petitioner No.1: Rs.4,80,000/- The petitioner No.2 to 5 Rs.2,50,000/-each The petitioner No.6:Rs.1,50,000/-
After deposit, Rs.1,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.1 shall be deposited for 3 years in her name and entire share of the petitioner No.2 to 5 shall be deposited in their names till they attain majority under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank. Balance amount and interest of the petitioner No.1 and entire share of petitioner No.6 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.2739/2016 and copy of the same in MVC.No.2740/2016 and 2741/2016.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore SCCH-14 35 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16 & 2741/16 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 SCCH-14 36 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16 & 2741/16 AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.2740/2016 Petitioners 1. SMT. PREMA W/o Late Thimmegowda Aged about 32 years,
2. CHIRANTH.T S/o Late Thimmegowda Aged about 3 years,
3. HARSHITH.T S/o Late Thimmegowda Aged about 7 years, Petitioner no.2 and 3 are minors represented by their natural guardian mother Prema i..e, petitioner no.1.
4. JAYAMMA W/o Thimmaiah Aged about 50 years,
5. THIMMAIAH S/o late Channaiah Aged about 65 years, All are R/o No.108, 2nd main, 1st cross, Kere Angala, Kamalanagar, Bangalore-560 079.
(By pleader Sri GPS) Respondents in all the cases 1. MOHAMMED ZABI S/o Mohammed Ahmed SCCH-14 37 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16 & 2741/16 Shajid Mamma Compound, Kumpala Bypass P.O, Kotekar, Kanara -South, Mangalore-575022.
2. UNITED INDIA INS.CO.LTD., D.O., 6th floor, Krishi Bhavan, Nrupathunga road, Hudson circle, Bangalroe-560 001.
(R1-By pleader Sri SIM R2-By pleader Sri BTR) 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, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. ORDER The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners are hereby partly allowed with cost.
[ SCCH-14 38 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16 & 2741/16 The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.19,01,000/- and are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petitions till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally is liable to pay compensation of Rs.19,01,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively. In view of policy, the respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation as under;
The petitioner No.1: Rs.7,01,000/- The petitioner No.2 & 3 Rs.4,00,000/- each The petitioner No.4 & 5:Rs.2,00,000/- each After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.1 shall be deposited in her name for 3 years and entire share of the petitioner No.2 & 3 shall be deposited in their names till they attain majority under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank. Balance amount and interest of the petitioner No.1 and entire share of petitioner No.4 & 5 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.2739/2016 and copy of the same in MVC.No.2740/2016 and 2741/2016.
SCCH-14 39 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16& 2741/16 Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore 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 SCCH-14 40 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16 & 2741/16 AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No. 2741/2016 Petitioners 1. SMT.ASHA W/o late Lokesh Aged about 26 years
2. HRUTHIK C.L S/o late Lokesh Aged about 2 years,
3. LAKSHMAMMA W/o late Narasimhaiah Aged about 50 years V/s All are R/o Chamalapura village, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District.
(By pleader Sri GPS) Respondents in all the cases 1. MOHAMMED ZABI S/o Mohammed Ahmed Shajid Mamma Compound, Kumpala Bypass P.O, Kotekar, Kanara -South, Mangalore-575022.
2. UNITED INDIA INS.CO.LTD., D.O., 6th floor, Krishi Bhavan, Nrupathunga road, Hudson circle, Bangalroe-560 001.
(R1-By pleader Sri SIM R2-By pleader Sri BTR) SCCH-14 41 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16 & 2741/16 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, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. ORDER The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners are hereby partly allowed with cost.
[ The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.17,43,000/-. They are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petitions till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally is liable to pay compensation of Rs.17,43,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively. In view of policy, the respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation as under;
SCCH-14 42 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16& 2741/16 The petitioner No.1: Rs.8,43,000/- The petitioner No.2: Rs.6,00,000/-each The petitioner No.3:Rs.3,00,000/-
After deposit, Rs.3,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.3 shall be deposited for 3 years in their names and entire share of the petitioner No.2 shall be deposited in his name till he attains majority under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank. Balance amount and interest of the petitioner No.1 & 3 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.2739/2016 and copy of the same in MVC.No.2740/2016 and 2741/2016.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore SCCH-14 43 MVC No.2739/16, 2740/16 & 2741/16 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