Bangalore District Court
Smt.Bhagyamma vs Sri.Channakeshavamurthy.M.T on 15 March, 2018
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
Court of Small Causes, Bangalore,
DATED THIS THE 15th MARCH 2018
PRESENT: SMT.GOMATI RAGHAVENDRA
LL.M, D.I.P.R, D.C.L
VII Addl.SCJ & XXXII ACMM
Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru.
M.V.C. No.8408/2016
Petitioners: 01. Smt.Bhagyamma,
W/o Nanjappachari,
Aged about 50 years,
02. Sri.Nanjappachari,
S/o late Puttashwamachari,
Aged about 55 years,
Both are R/o Sigavalu Village,
Saligrama Hobli, K.R. Nagara
Taluk, Mysore District.
(By Sri.G.P.Shivaprasad, Advocate)
-Vs-
Respondents: 01. Sri.Channakeshavamurthy.M.T,
S/o Thimmegowda.V,
R/o Vaahika Connect, No.3,
Maruthi Nagar, Garden Villa,
Nagarbhavi Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 072.
(SCCH-3) 2 MVC 8408/16
(RC owner of Winger Passenger vehicle
bearing reg. No.KA-41-A-9933)
(By Sri.B.N.Nagaraj, Advocate)
02. Reliance General Insurance Co.
Ltd.,
2nd Floor, S.M. Towers,
11th Main, 3rd Block,
Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 011.
Policy No.1405262340000059 valid from
06-04-2016 to 05-04-2017
(By Sri.H.K.Ramamurthy, Advocate)
03. Sri.Syed Aleem,
S/o Syed Ali,
5th Block, Bellur,
Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya District.
(RC owner of Canter bearing reg. No.
KA-13-A-7857)
(Exparte)
04. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.1119/B, Kambli Building,
M.C. Road, Ashoknagar,
Mandya - 571 401.
Policy No:0720013115P116041407 valid
from: 28-03-2016 to 27-03-2017
(By Sri.K.R.Shivananda, Advocate)
**********
(SCCH-3) 3 MVC 8408/16
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have filed present petition U/Sec 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000-00 (One crore only) on account of death of one Sri.S.N.Santhosh in the alleged Road Traffic Accident.
02. The case of the petitioners in brief is as under:-
That on 13-08-2016 at around 8.30 p.m., deceased S.N.Santhosh was travelling as a paid passenger in Winger passenger vehicle bearing reg. No. KA-41-A-9933 along with other passengers from Bangalore towards Hassan, while so proceeding near Herur Village, NH-75 bypass road, Kunigal Taluk, at that point of time driver of one Canter bearing reg. No.KA-13-A-7857 had parked his vehicle in the middle of the road without parking lights or any signals and driver of Winger passenger vehicle drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result he lost control over his vehicle and dashed against the parked Canter from back side & caused the accident, due to which all the inmates of Winger vehicle sustained fatal injuries and four passengers including Santhosh.S.N died on the spot and rest of the passengers were grievously injured. Soon after the accident body of the (SCCH-3) 4 MVC 8408/16 deceased was shifted to nearby CHC, Kunigal, wherein doctors conducted postmortem and handed over the body to the petitioners.
03. At the time of accident, deceased was aged about 28 years, having sturdy and very handsome look & was keeping very good health. He was qualified having completed MBA and degree in Software Engineering and was employed at Veer-O-Metals Pvt. Ltd., as a Junior Engineer & drawing salary of Rs.30,000-00 p.m. Now, due to untimely death of Santhosh, petitioners have dipped in the ocean of sorrow by lasting of the fulcrum of the family. Accident is due to purely negligent parking of offending Canter vehicle and very high speed driving and dashing of Winger passenger vehicle. The concerned Kunigal Police have registered a case against the drivers of both the vehicles in their Cr. No.272/2016 for the offences punishable U/Sec 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC. Hence, this petition.
04. Interalia inspite of service of notice respondent No.3 did not appear before the tribunal and placed exparte. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 put their appearance through their respective counsels and have contested the petition and filed written statement.
05. Respondent No.1 in his written statement has contended that at the time of accident the driver of (SCCH-3) 5 MVC 8408/16 Winger vehicle was driving it in a slow and cautious manner by observing traffic norms and driver of the Lorry had parked in a dangerous position in the middle of the road without any indication or safety measure and the driver could not see the dangerously parked vehicle under any stretch of imagination and in all probability and said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and policy was in force at the time of accident.
06. Respondent No.2-Reliance General Insurance Company has filed its written statement wherein it admits issuance of policy of insurance in respect of vehicle bearing reg. No.KA-41-A-9933 in favour of respondent No.1 and its validity at the time of accident, but same is subject to terms and conditions of the policy and if at all the alleged accident has taken place it is only due to careless and negligence parking of Canter Lorry. It has further pleaded that driver of respondent No.1 did not possess valid and effective driving licence and hence respondent No.1 violated policy conditions and also that the said vehicle had no permit and respondent No.1 allowed said person to carry more than seating capacity. This respondent has denied the manner of accident as well as age, avocation and income of the deceased as alleged in the petition and further contended that claim of (SCCH-3) 6 MVC 8408/16 compensation made by the petitioners is highly exorbitant.
07. Respondent No.4-United India Insurance Company has filed written statement admitting the issuance of policy of insurance in respect of Canter Lorry bearing reg. No.KA-131-A-7857 in favour of respondent No.3 as well as its validity as on the date of accident, but its liability if any is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It has further pleaded that the driver of the said canter did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and as such there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy by respondent No.3. It has denied the manner of accident as well as age, avocation and income of the deceased as alleged in the petition. It has further pleaded that if the driver of Winger passenger vehicle had taken little care and observed the traffic rules and regulations and also observed the Canter Lorry parked on the extreme left side of the road, he could have avoided the accident and present accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Winger vehicle who is main architect of the alleged accident. Thus, by denying rest of the petition contents, all the respondents have sought for dismissal of the petition.
(SCCH-3) 7 MVC 8408/1608. Based on the aforesaid contentions and materials available on record, the following Issues have been framed: -
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the LRs/dependants of deceased Sri.Santhosh.S.N.?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Sri.Santhosh.S.N. was died in RTA arising out of the accident alleged to have been taken place on 13-08-2016 at about 8.30 p.m., near Herur village, NH-75 Bye-pass road, Kunigal Taluk, due to the negligent parking of Canter bearing No. KA-13-A-7857 and rash and negligent driving of the driver of Winger Passenger vehicle bearing No. KA-41-A-9933 as alleged in the petition?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount & from whom?
4. What order or award?
09. In support of petition contents, petitioner No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and one more witness as P.W.2, they got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23. Totally four witnesses are examined on behalf of respondents as R.W.1 to R.W.4, who got marked document at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.11.
(SCCH-3) 8 MVC 8408/1610. Heard the arguments, perused materials available on record.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon ruling reported in AIR 2000 Orissa 52 in between Shashikala Swain and others Vs Md. Khairuddin and another. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has relied upon rulings and Judgments reported in 1994 ACJ 1303 in between Mataji Bewa and others Vs Hemanta Kumar Jena and another, MFA No.2921/2012 in between Smt.Vijayalakshmi.K.N. and others Vs KSRTC and MFA No.8215/2012 in between Sri.Manjunath.G @ Manjunath Vs The United India Insurance Complainant. Ltd., and another.
This tribunal has gone through the ratio laid down in the aforesaid rulings and Judgments.
12. My findings on the aforesaid Issues are as under:-
Issue Nos.1 & 2 In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 Partly in the Affirmative &
as per final order
Issue No.4 As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
13. Issue Nos.1 & 2:- As these Issues are inter- related to each other, hence in order to avoid repetition (SCCH-3) 9 MVC 8408/16 of facts, these Issues are taken up together for common discussion.
14. As per the case of the petitioners they are parents of deceased Santhosh.S.N, who met with an accident on 13-08-2016 and died due to the accidental injuries. In order to substantiate the relationship as contended, petitioner No.1 stepped into the witness box and led evidence as P.W.1, who in her affidavit evidence has reiterated similar to petition contents. In addition to her ocular evidence, P.W.1 has relied upon documents such as marks card for Apprentices (Engineering), Aadhaar cards of herself, petitioner No.2 and deceased marked respectively at Ex.P.9, Ex.P.19 to Ex.P.21. Perusal of Ex.P.9 marks card for Apprentices (Engineering) it discloses the father name of the deceased as Nanjappachari, petitioner No.2 herein, so also the Aadhaar card of petitioner No.1 i.e., the witness discloses her husband name as Nanjappachari, petitioner No.2 herein. The Aadhaar card of petitioner No.2 is marked at Ex.P.20. Aadhaar card of deceased marked at Ex.P.21 discloses his father name as Nanjappachari, petitioner No.2 herein. The aforesaid documentary evidence coupled with ocular evidence of P.W.1 establish the fact that petitioners are none other than the parents of deceased Santhosh.S.N. (SCCH-3) 10 MVC 8408/16
15. In her evidence, P.W.1 has further stated that, being parents they were depending on the income of the deceased. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects, petitioners being mother and father of the deceased are treated as dependants of the deceased at the time of accident.
16. It is further case of the petitioners that on relevant date, time and place while deceased was travelling as a paid passenger in a Winger Passenger vehicle bearing reg. No.KA-41-A-9933 along with other passengers, while travelling so at the spot of accident one Canter bearing reg. No.KA-13-A-7857 was parked by the driver in the middle of the road without parking lights or any signals and the driver of Winger passenger vehicle drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result he lost control over the vehicle and dashed against parked canter vehicle causing accident, due to which the inmates of Winger vehicle sustained fatal injuries and four passengers including Santhosh.S.N died on the spot.
17. In order to substantiate these contents, P.W.1 has relied upon documents such as Complaint, FIR, spot Mahazar, spot Sketch, IMV report, Inquest report, PM report and Charge sheet marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 respectively. Perusal of Complaint at Ex.P.1, it came to be lodged by one Kumar S/o Linganna (SCCH-3) 11 MVC 8408/16 stating that he is running Tea Hotel near the spot and at the time of accident, Canter bearing reg. No. KA-13-A-7857 was parked by his driver without any parking lights, which was in the manner of obstructing the other vehicles and he heard the huge sound and when he rushed to the spot he came to know that the accident was occurred between the lorry and van as the van dashed against the back portion of the lorry. Based on the complaint, FIR came to be registered by Kunigal Police as per Ex.P.2 against drivers of both Canter lorry and Tata winger for the offences punishable U/Sec 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC and r/w Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w Sec.187 of IMV Act. Spot Mahazar at Ex.P.3 discloses that the lorry was parked without any signals and the back door of the lorry was opened and tarpal was put on the back side of the lorry and it was parked in the manner to obstruct the other moving vehicles and the Tata winger vehicle was completely damaged in the accident. Spot Sketch at Ex.P.4 discloses that the Canter lorry was parked at the left side of the road and the Winger vehicle which was moving to its right side of the road beside which there is a divider and adjacent to the divider there is a another road i.e., accident road is double road in between the divider meant for on coming and up going vehicles. As far as on going vehicles road is concerned, (SCCH-3) 12 MVC 8408/16 on which accident occurred, the spot Sketch reveals that there is a 68 feet tyre mark from the place of Winger at its right side that came suddenly towards the left side of the road and dashed against rear portion of the parked lorry in question. IMV report marked at Ex.P.5 discloses damages found on both the vehicles involved in the accident and perusal of this documents, it discloses the damages found on the lorry such as rear right side door damaged, rear right side bumper damaged and rear right side lighting damaged. The Inquest report at Ex.P.6 discloses the nature of death of deceased Santhosh.S.N and P.M. report at Ex.P.7 discloses cause of death due to head injury as multiple fractures sustained in RTA. After investigation of the case, the I.O has filed Charge sheet as per Ex.P.8 against drivers of Canter bearing reg. No.KA-13-A-7857 and Winger passenger vehicle bearing reg. No.KA-41-A-9933 by name Noushad S/o Basheer and Santhosha S/o Puttaraju, for the offences punishable U/Sec 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of IPC and U/sec 122 and Sec.177 of IMV Act.
18. In the case on hand, all respondent Nos.1, 2and 4 have contested the petition and denied manner of the accident. Respondent No.3, the RC owner of Lorry remained exparte.
(SCCH-3) 13 MVC 8408/1619. The driver of Tata Winger is examined as R.W.2, who in his affidavit evidence has reiterated similar to written statement averments of respondent No.1, the RC owner of said Winger vehicle. In his evidence R.W.2 has stated that at the time of accident as his vehicle right back tyre got burst, he lost control and as such his vehicle touched against Canter Lorry bearing reg. No.KA-13-A-7857 as it was completely covered with tarpal which was parked in the middle of the road without putting any indicator and as such said accident occurred due to negligence on the part of said canter vehicle driver who parked it in the middle of the road without any indication. In the course of his cross-examination this witness has stated that he has not challenged charge sheet which is also filed against him. This witness has denied that he drove the vehicle with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident.
20. Respondent No.1, the RC owner of Winger vehicle is also examined as R.W.3, whose affidavit evidence is nothing but replica of his written statement averments. In addition to his ocular evidence, R.W.3 has produced OD claim report and letter issued by Reliance Insurance marked at Ex.R.2 and Ex.R.3 respectively. Admittedly this witness has not seen the (SCCH-3) 14 MVC 8408/16 accident and as such his evidence is not helpful to decide this Issue.
21. The driver of Canter lorry is examined as R.W.4, who has produced RC, Driving licence, Tax card, FC, Insurance policy and Permit marked at Ex.R.5 to Ex.R.10 respectively. He has stated in his evidence that on the date of accident he was driving Canter Lorry and he had parked his Canter at the left side of the mud road since right side wheel was punctured and he had put parking lights on his lorry and the Winger vehicle came on the same direction with high speed, in negligent manner and dashed against his vehicle. He has also got marked the spot Sketch at Ex.R.11, which is also got marked by petitioners. This witness has been cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioners, wherein he has stated that all the vehicular documents of his lorry including his driving licence were valid at the time of accident and he has admitted that charge sheet is filed against him also as he did not put on parking lights, but he has further stated that the parking lights were on, but when the driver of Winger vehicle dashed against his vehicle from behind, said indicator lights got damaged. However, this witness has admitted that accident occurred due to negligence of both drivers of the vehicles and his lorry was parked without (SCCH-3) 15 MVC 8408/16 precautionary measures and also due to negligence of Winger vehicle driver as he drove the same rashly and negligently. He has further stated that he has not challenged Police records including final report. This witness in the course of cross-examination by respondent No.2 denied that he did not put on parking lights at the rear side of the lorry. Although this witness deny the said aspect, but when he was subjected to cross-examination by the counsel for petitioners as stated above, he has in clear terms admitted that accident occurred due to negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles and that his lorry was parked without precautionary measures. Perusal of Complaint at Ex.P.1 lodged by the nearby hotel owner stating that the Canter lorry was parked without any parking lights and the back door of the said lorry was opened and tarpal was put on its rear portion that was causing hindrance to the moving vehicles. Admittedly accident occurred in night hours at 8.30 p.m. If at all the driver of the Canter lorry had really put parking lights or had taken precautionary measure as stated by the driver as R.W.4, this act would have been revealed in the complaint or in other documents relied upon by the respective parties. Admittedly, there was a tarpal put at the rear portion of the lorry. When such being the case, it is difficult to accept the contention of (SCCH-3) 16 MVC 8408/16 respondent No.4 or R.W.4 that the parking lights were on at the time of accident. Moreover, R.W.4, the lorry driver himself in his cross-examination has admitted that accident in question has occurred on account of negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles including himself, as the lorry was parked without indication or precautionary measures. Even perusal of IMV report at Ex.P.5, it discloses rear right lighting damaged. It means to say that there is no damage on the left rear lighting and if that is so atleast rear left lighting should have been on. R.W.3 in his evidence has stated that he has put on parking lights at the rear side of the vehicle but the same got damaged when the driver of Winger lorry dashed against the rear side of his vehicle. If that is so, there should have been atleast rear left lighting on. There is no explanation by respondent No.4 or R.W.4 in this regard.
22. It is material to note that as per the provisions of M.V. Act, it clearly stated that "No person in-charge of motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or to remain as rest on any public place, in such a position or in such circumstances as to cause or likely to cause danger or obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of public place or to the passengers".
(SCCH-3) 17 MVC 8408/1623. The driver of Winger vehicle who is examined as R.W.2 has clearly stated in his evidence that at the time of accident his vehicle right back tyre got burst and he lost control and as such his vehicle touched against canter lorry as it was completely covered with tarpal. The evidence of R.W.2 makes it emphatically clear that accident also occurred due to his rash and negligent driving as he lost control that ultimately caused accident. Even perusal of Charge sheet at Ex.P.8, it discloses that both drivers of Lorry and Tata Winger are responsible for causing present accident due to parking of lorry by its driver without putting parking lights and taking precautionary measures and also by driver of Tata Winger due to his rash and negligent driving who dashed against said parked lorry. Both R.W.2 and R.W.4 in their cross- examination have admitted filing of Charge sheet against them and they have also stated that they have not challenged the Police records before higher Police authority. If at all they have not committed any such offence or there was no negligence on the part of them in causing accident, nothing prevented them to challenge the Police records. Moreover, these drivers except their self-serving testimony, have not ventured to examine any independent witnesses who have seen the accident as witnesses in this case, but (SCCH-3) 18 MVC 8408/16 unfortunately they have not made any such efforts. No doubt, Police records including charge sheet cannot be treated as an evidence and not a conclusive proof to accept its contents, but no reliable materials placed by the respondents either by examining independent witness or by producing contra materials to discard the evidence of petitioner both oral and documentary. Under such circumstances, it becomes very difficult to accept the version of both R.W.2 and R.W.4. There is no contra materials relied upon by both drivers or by R.C. owners and insurers of said vehicles to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 or to discard the documentary evidence relied upon by P.W.1. Hence, taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects and materials on record, the tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident in question has taken place on account of parking of the lorry by its driver without parking lights or precautionary measures and also by the driver of Tata Winger who due to his rash and negligent driving dashed against rear portion of said parked lorry. Hence Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative.
Issue No.3:-
24. As discussed in previous Issue, P.W.1 and petitioner No.2 being mother and father of the (SCCH-3) 19 MVC 8408/16 deceased are the legal heirs and financial dependants of the deceased.
25. It has come in the evidence of P.W.1 that at the time of the accident her deceased son was keeping very good health, qualified having completed MBA and degree in Software Engineering and was permanent employee at Veer-O-Metals Pvt. Ltd., and working as a Junior Engineer and drawing salary of Rs.30,000-00 p.m. In order to substantiate such contents, P.W.1 has produced Diploma marks cards, Training certificate from WIPRO, Training certificate from TTP Technology Pvt. Ltd., Training certificate from WIPRO Infrastructure Engineering Ltd., Job offering letter of Veer-O-Metals Pvt. Ltd., and Pay slips (5 in Nos.) marked respectively at Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.18. She has also examined Manager - HR working in the said company as P.W.2, who in his evidence has produced Authorization letter and Character certificate of the deceased marked respectively at Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.23.
26. Perusal of Ex.P.17 the Job offering letter issued by the said company, it discloses that the company has offered deceased to the position of Junior Engineer in their organization. Ex.P.18 is Pay slips for the month of March to July 2016, which shows that deceased was working in the said company as Operator - Qualification and drawing gross salary of (SCCH-3) 20 MVC 8408/16 Rs.19,420-00 p.m. The accident occurred in the month of August 2016. P.W.2 has been subjected to cross- examination by the counsels for respondent Nos.2 and 4, wherein he has stated that he being HR Manager of the company, he is competent to appoint employees to his company. He has further stated that he has not produced Form No.16 or income tax details, because it is not applicable to the deceased and the salary of the deceased was credited to his SBI bank account and no death benefits are made applicable to the employees and personal accident insurance amount of Rs.3,00,000-00 is paid to the deceased family. He has further stated that deceased Santhosh was the regular employee. As stated above, the pay slip for the month of July 2016, the month which is just prior to the month of accident discloses the annual monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.19,420-00 as gross salary. Hence, Rs.19,420-00 is taken into consideration as monthly salary of the deceased at the time of accident.
27. As stated by P.W.1 in her evidence that her deceased son was aged about 28 years at the time of accident. But petitioners have not produced any cogent proof regarding age of deceased as 28 years. In Aadhaar card marked at Ex.P.21 the birth year of the deceased is mentioned as 1986 and the accident (SCCH-3) 21 MVC 8408/16 occurred on 13-08-2016. So, as on the date of accident the age of the deceased appears to be 31 years. Therefore, the age of the deceased is considered as 31 years as on the date of accident.
28. This tribunal has drawn the attention on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 in between National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others in which it is observed that "in case of deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition to 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation".
29. In the instant case the deceased was died in a road traffic accident when his age was 31 years and the decision as stated above is clear that the Tribunal has to consider future prospects even for self-employed or were engaged on fixed wages. Admittedly the deceased falls below the age group of 40 years. So, 40% of the future prospects is taken into consideration it comes to Rs.19,420 + 40% (Rs.7,768) = Rs.27,188-00, out of which professional tax of (SCCH-3) 22 MVC 8408/16 Rs.200-00 p.m. has to be deducted, the balance comes to Rs.26,988-00 p.m., then annual income comes to Rs.3,23,856-00.
30. Admittedly deceased is a bachelor, 50% should be deducted as personal and living expenses of the deceased. So, if 50% is deducted from his yearly income it comes to Rs.1,61,928-00. The deceased age has been already considered as 31 years as on the date of alleged accident. So, as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Corporation Limited reported in ACJ 1298 the multiplier applicable is "16". So, Rs.1,61,928 x 16 = Rs.25,90,848-00 towards loss of dependency. So, the petitioners are entitled for the said amount towards loss of dependency.
31. As per SLP (Civil) No.25590/2014 in between National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others loss of estate is awarded as Rs.15,000-00 and Rs.15,000-00 is awarded for funeral and obsequies.
32. Thus the total award stands as follows:
1.Loss of dependency Rs.25,90,848-00
2.Loss of estate 15,000-00
3.Transportation of dead 15,000-00 body and funeral expenses Total Rs.26,20,848-00 (SCCH-3) 23 MVC 8408/16 Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.26,20,848-00 only.
33. With regard to the liability:- While answering previous Issue, this Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that the accident in question has taken place due to wrongful act on the part of both drivers of Canter bearing reg. No.KA-13-A-7857 and Winger passenger vehicle bearing reg. No.KA-41-A-9933. As per the case of the petitioners, respondent Nos.1 and 3 being the R.C. owners and respondent Nos.2 and 4 being the insurers of both offending vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them.
34. Respondent No.3, the R.C. owner of Canter vehicle inspite of service of notice failed to appear before the tribunal and placed exparte. If at all he had any grievance against claim petition, he has appear and contested the petition. But for the reasons best known to him, he has not done so, which in turn leads to an adverse inference against him that he has admitted the claim petition.
35. Respondent No.1 is the R.C. owner of Winger vehicle and respondent Nos.2 and 4, the Insurance Companies of both vehicles respectively have admitted issuance of policy of insurance in respect of their R.C. owners as well as its validity at the time of accident. Under such circumstances, all (SCCH-3) 24 MVC 8408/16 respondent Nos.1 to 4 being the RC owners and insurers of both offending vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. In view of existence of policy of insurance, respondent Nos.2 and 4 -Insurance Companies shall pay entire compensation amount equally to the petitioners and shall indemnify respondent Nos.1 and 3 -R.C. owners. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered partly in the Affirmative.
36. Issue No.4:- In view of my finding on Issue Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec 166 of the M.V. Act, 1989 is allowed in part, with costs.
Petitioners are entitled for Rs.26,20,848-00 as compensation with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. In view of valid insurance policy, respondent Nos.2 and 4
- Insurance Companies are equally liable to pay compensation amount and shall deposit the same within two months from the date of this award.(SCCH-3) 25 MVC 8408/16
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, 50% each is allotted to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, by way of apportionment of compensation amount.
Out of the share amount of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, 40% each of the amount shall be deposited in their names in any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years and the remaining 60% each of the amount shall be released to them by means of A/c payee cheques on proper identification without any further proceedings. However, they are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amounts from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000-00.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, then corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 15th day of March 2018) (GOMATI RAGHAVENDRA) VII Addl. Judge & XXXII ACMM, Bengaluru.(SCCH-3) 26 MVC 8408/16
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the petitioners:
P.W.1 Bhagyamma
P.W.2 Kamalnath.V
List of documents marked on behalf of the
petitioners:
Ex.P.1 Copy of Complaint
Ex.P.2 Copy of FIR
Ex.P.3 Copy of spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4 Copy of spot Sketch
Ex.P.5 Copy of IMV report
Ex.P.6 Copy of Inquest report
Ex.P.7 Copy of PM report
Ex.P.8 Copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P.9 Diploma marks card
Ex.P.10 Diploma marks card of 6th semester
Ex.P.11 Diploma marks card of 5th semester
Ex.P.12 Diploma marks card of 3rd semester
Ex.P.13 Diploma marks card of 4th semester
Ex.P.14 Training certificate from WIPRO
Ex.P.15 Training certificate from TTP technology Pvt.
Ltd.,
Ex.P.16 Training certificate from WIPRO
Infrastructure Engineering Ltd.,
Ex.P.17 Job offering letter of Veer O-Metal Pvt. Ltd.,
Ex.P.18 Pay slips (5 in Nos.)
Ex.P.19 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner
No.1
Ex.P.20 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner
No.2
Ex.P.21 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of deceased
Ex.P.22 Authorization letter
Ex.P.23 Character certificate
(SCCH-3) 27 MVC 8408/16
List of witnesses examined for the Respondents:
R.W.1 D.S.Pradeep
R.W.2 Santhosh
R.W.3 Channakeshavamurthy.M.T
R.W.4 Naushad
List of documents marked on behalf of the
Respondents:
Ex.R.1 Copy of Insurance policy
Ex.R.2 OD claim report
Ex.R.3 Letter issued by Reliance Insurance
dt:10-01-2018
Ex.R.4 Not marked
Ex.R.5 Notarized copy of RC
Ex.R.6 Notarized copy of Driving license
Ex.R.7 Notarized copy of Tax card
Ex.R.8 Notarized copy of Fitness certificate
Ex.R.9 Notarized copy of Policy copy
Ex.R.10 Notarized copy of Permit
Ex.R.11 Spot Sketch
(GOMATI RAGHAVENDRA)
VII Addl. Judge & XXXII ACMM,
Bengaluru.