Bangalore District Court
In Mvc No.887/2015 1. Smt.Salma vs In All The Cases The Managing Director on 12 February, 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.887/2015, 888/2015 & 889/2015
Dated this the 12th day of February 2016.
Petitioners in MVC No.887/2015 1. Smt.Salma
W/o Late Aslam Ahmed,
Aged about 33 years.
2. Kum.Faiza Firdose,
D/o Late Aslam Ahmed,
Aged about 14 years.
3. Master.Iliyas Ahmed,
S/o Late Aslam Ahmed,
Aged about 10 years.
4.Smt.Saleema Bi,
W/o Late Nazir Ahmed,
Aged about 60 years.
Petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors,
represented by natural guardian and
mother 1st petitioner herein.
All are residing at No.263, 17th cross,
Govindapura, Arabic College post.
Bangalore-560045
(By pleader Sri PR)
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
Petitioners in MVC No.888/2015 1. Smt.Meharunnisa,
W/o Syed Muneer,
Aged about 36 years.
2. Master Syed Shoaib,
S/o Late Syed Muneer,
Aged about 14 years.
3. Master.Syed Shadab,
S/o Late Syed Muneer,
Aged about 12 years.
4.Kum.Arshiya Begum,
D/o Late Syed Munner,
Aged about 7 years.
Petitioners No.2 to 4 are minors,
represented by natural guardian and
mother 1st petitioner herein.
All are residing at No.6/13, 'B' street,
Slaughter House, H.K.P.Road,
Shivajinagar,
Bangalore - 560051.
(By pleader Sri PR)
Petitioners in MVC No.889/2015 1. Smt.Nasreen Taj,
W/o Khadar Nawaz Khan,
Aged about 58 years.
2.Kum.Kaneez Fathima
Khanam,
D/o Khadar Nawaz Khan,
Aged about 24 years.
3. Mohsin Khan,
S/o Khadar Nawaz Khan,
Aged about 22 years.
SCCH-14 3 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
All are residing at No.18/B,
2nd Cross,2nd main, SRK Garden,
Tilak Nagar, Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560041.
(By pleader Sri PR)
Vs
Respondent in all the cases THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
B.M.T.C. Depot,
Bangalore Central Offices,
K.G Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore-27.
(By pleader Sri MNK)
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 4 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
COMMON JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed these petitions U/Sec.166 of Motor
Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, Rs.20,00,000/-
and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively with cost and interest for the death of
Aslam Ahmed, Syed Muneer and Khadar Nawaz Khan due to injuries
sustained by them in a road traffic accident. These three petitions are
arising out of the same accident and hence, the petitions are clubbed
together for common trial and for disposal by a common Judgment. Since,
the petitioner No.2 and 3 in MVC No.887/15, the petitioner No.2 to 4 in
888/2015 are minors, they are represented by their next friend and natural
guardian i.e., Mother respectively.
2. Brief averments of the claim petitions are as under:
On 24.12.2014 at about 06.15 P.M., the deceased Aslam Ahmed was
driving Goods Ape bearing No.KA-51-1029, the deceased Syed Muneer was
riding Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No.KA-04-E-1471 and the deceased
Khadar Nawaz Khan was riding Honda Activa bearing No.KA-03-EE-9068
on Hennur Main Road-Devis road, slowly, cautiously and carefully by
observing the traffic rules. When they reached near Lingarajapuram flyover,
at that time, BMTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-3724 driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner, came extreme right side of the road and jumped
the centre median and dashed against the goods Ape bearing No.KA-51-
1059, motorcycle bearing No.KA-02-EJ-3665, Bajaj Chetak scooter bearing
No.KA-04-E-1471 and Honda Active bearing No.KA-03-EE-9068. Due to
impact, all the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over
the body and died on the spot. After post mortem, dead bodies were hand
over to the respective petitioners.
SCCH-14 5 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
The deceased Aslam Ahmed was aged 40 years, working as cook cum
caterer, was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He was also working as a
helper on part time basis at Hanifa Real Estate, Kushal Nagar Main Road,
KG.Halli, Bangalore on a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. The deceased was
hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was the sole bread earning
member in the family. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the
petitioners are suffering from mental shock and financial problems. They
spent Rs.50,000/- for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.
The deceased Syed Muneer was aged 43 years, working as a
carpenter and earning Rs.20,000/- pm., He was also working at Woodlands
furniture, No.80, 2nd Main Road, 11th cross, Hidazath Nagar, HR Layout,
Bangalore. The deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he
was the sole bread earning member in the family. Due to the untimely death
of the deceased, the petitioners are suffering from mental shock and
financial problems. They spent Rs.50,000/- for transportation of dead body
and funeral expenses.
The deceased Khadar Nawaz Khan was aged 60 years, working as a
driver and earning Rs.15,000/- pm., The deceased was hale and healthy
prior to the accident and he was the sole bread earning member in the
family. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners are
suffering from mental shock and financial problems. They spent
Rs.50,000/- for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.
Banaswadi Traffic police have registered in Cr.No.154/2014 against
the driver of the BMTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-3724 for the offences
SCCH-14 6 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
punishable U/Sec.279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. The respondent is the owner
of BMTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-3724 and is liable to pay compensation to
the petitioners with the cost and interest. Hence, the petitions.
3. In pursuance of the notices, the respondent has appeared
before the court through his counsel and filed objection statement
separately in all the cases. He has denied the averments of the petitions as
false and contended that the petitions are misconceived and are not
maintainable either in law or on facts. He has admitted to be the owner of
BMTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-3724, but he has denied the existence of
rash and negligence on the part of his driver for occurrence of accident. He
has contended that when bus was proceeding on Lingarajapuram flyover,
suddenly the bus steering rod was cut and the driver has lost control over
the bus, that suddenly, the bus was turned towards right side of the road in
order avoid major accident and injuries at any rate, that he is not liable to
pay compensation much less the one claimed by the petitioners, that the
petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the deceased were
driving/riding their vehicles without valid driving license. He has denied the
age, occupation and income of the deceased and status of the petitioners to
claim compensation. He has further denied the occurrence of the accident
in the manner as narrated in the petitions and contended that the
compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant,
imaginary, unaffordable, astronomical and no relation to facts and
circumstances of the case, that he has paid Rs.15,000/- to the petitioners in
each case towards interim compensation. Hence, he has sought for
dismissal of the petitions with exemplary costs.
SCCH-14 7 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were
framed:
ISSUES
In MVC No.887/2015;
1. Whether the petitioners prove that
Aslam Ahmed S/o Late Nazir Ahmed
died due to the injuries sustained by
him in an accident occurred on
24.12.2014 at about 06.15 p.m., near
Lingarajapuram flyover, Hennur
main road, Davis road, Bangalore,
arising due to rash and negligent
driving of driver of BMTC bus
bearing No. KA-01-F-3724?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and
from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
In MVC No.888/2015;
1. Whether the petitioners prove that
Syed Muneer S/o Syed Zain Buddin
died due to the injuries sustained by
him in an accident occurred on
24.12.2014 at about 06.15 p.m., near
Lingarajapuram flyover, Hennur
main road, Davis road, Bangalore,
arising due to rash and negligent
driving of driver of BMTC bus
bearing No. KA-01-F-3724?
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.887, 888 & 889/2015
In MVC No.889/2015;
1. Whether the petitioners prove that
Khadar Nawaz Khan S/o Hameed
Khan died due to the injuries
sustained by him in an accident
occurred on 24.12.2014 at about
06.15 p.m., near Lingarajapuram
flyover, Hennur main road, Davis
road, Bangalore, arising due to rash
and negligent driving of driver of
BMTC bus bearing No. KA-01-F-
3724?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and
from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. These petitions are clubbed together at the instance of the
petitioners for common evidence and for disposal by a common Judgment.
During the evidence, the petitioners in MVC No.887/2015 have examined
the petitioner No.1 therein as PW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1
to 16. The petitioners in MVC No.888/2015 have examined the petitioner
No.1 therein as PW-2 and got marked documents as Ex.P17 to 25. The
petitioners in MVC No.889/2015 have examined the petitioner No.1 therein
as PW-3 and got marked documents as Ex.P26 to 32. The petitioners have
examined an independent witness as PW-4. The respondent has examined
his driver as RW-1 and closed his side. He has not produced any
documentary evidence on his behalf.
6. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the petitioners has
relied upon following rulings :
SCCH-14 9 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
1.2013 ACJ 1403
(Rajesh and others Vs Rajbir singh and Ors )
2.2015 AIR SCW 3105
(Munna Lal Jain and another Vs Vipin Kumar
sharma and ors)
The counsel for the respondent has filed written arguments. I have
gone through the said rulings and written 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.887/15: In Affirmative.
For Rs.14,71,000/-.
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.888/15: In Affirmative.
For Rs.14,71,000/-.
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.889/15: In Affirmative.
For Rs.4,50,000/-.
Issue No.3 :In all cases: As per final order:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 IN ALL THE CASES: The counsel for the
petitioners has argued that the deceased persons were driving/ riding their
respective vehicles on 24.12.2014 at about 06.15 pm, on Hennur Main
Road-Devis road, that when they reached near Lingarajapuram flyover, at
that time, BMTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-3724 driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner, came from opposite direction, jumped the centre
median and dashed against vehicles of the deceased, that due to impact, the
deceased persons sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot, that the
accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the bus and the
respondent being the owner, is liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners, who are the LRs and dependents of the deceased persons. He
SCCH-14 10 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
has further argued that the PW-1 to 3 have reiterated the averments of the
petition and PW-4 is an eyewitness and he has supported the version of
PW-1 to 3 regarding manner of accident and negligence of the driver of the
bus, that the respondent has admitted the occurrence of accident, but he
has denied the negligence of his driver for occurrence of accident and
contended that there was mechanical defect for the occurrence of accident.
He has further argued that the IMV report at Ex.P3 does not disclose the
mechanical defect for occurrence of accident and it falsifies the contention
of the respondent, that the evidence of RW-1 is contradictory to the police
records and IMV report, that the respondent has failed to prove his defence
regarding mechanical defects for the occurrence of the accident which
clearly indicates that the accident was due to sole negligence of the driver of
the bus. Hence, he has sought for answering issue in affirmative.
9. The counsel for the respondent has filed written arguments
wherein he has argued that the BMTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-3724 was on
regular scheduled trip from Vidhana Soudha to BDS nagar on 24.012.2014
and when the bus was proceeding on Lingarajapuram flyover, at that time,
suddenly the bus steering rod was cut and the driver lost control over the
bus, he applied brakes, the bus turned towards right side and alleged
accident has occurred, that the respondent is not liable to pay compensation
to the petitioners, that the corporation has paid Rs.15,000/- towards
interim compensation to the petitioners in each case, that the petitioners
have failed to prove the occupation and income of the deceased persons,
that the alleged eyewitness PW-4 has admitted in cross-examination that
road was busy and it is down gradient, that there were several other vehicles
in front of the bus. He has argued that to avoid heavy casualty, the driver
took his bus towards right side, that RW-1 is the driver of the bus and he has
SCCH-14 11 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
deposed as per defence of the respondent, that there was no rash and
negligent act of the said driver for the occurrence of accident, that due to
mechanical problem, the accident has occurred and it was reported by the
driver to the police, but they have failed to register his complaint, that IMV
inspection was conducted in his absence, that the said driver intends to
challenge the charge sheet and IMV report, that interim compensation paid
to the petitioners shall be considered by the court. Hence, he has sought for
answering the issue in negative.
10. Looking to the revival contentions of the parties, it can be seen
that the respondent is admitted to be the owner of BMTC bus bearing
No.KA-01-F-3724, that he has admitted the occurrence of the accident, the
death of deceased persons due to the injuries sustained by them in the said
accident, that he has admitted the payment of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioners
towards interim compensation in each case. But, it is the specific defence of
the respondent that there was no negligence on the part of his driver and
the accident has occurred due to the mechanical defect i.e., steering rod was
cut and bus moved towards right side and accident has occurred.
11. PW-1 to 3 are the wives of the deceased persons respectively and
they have reiterated the averments of the petitions. Their, evidence
regarding manner of accident and negligence of the driver of BMTC bus
bearing No.KA-01-F-3724 is inadmissible. But, their evidence regarding
death of deceased persons and cause for their death is admissible and
believable. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from them regarding
death of deceased persons. PW-4 Ramesh is the eyewitness to the accident
and he has supported the version of PW-1 to 3 and stated that the accident
has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of BMTC
bus bearing No.KA-01-F-3724. The admissions pointed out by the counsel
SCCH-14 12 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
for the respondent are not helpful to prove that the accident was not due to
the negligence of the driver of the bus and it has occurred due to the
mechanical defects. Evidence of PW-4 establishes the negligence of the
driver of the bus for occurrence of the accident. The respondent has
examined the driver Murugendra as RW-1 to prove his defence and to rebut
the evidence of PW-1 to 4. RW-1 has deposed that the accident has
occurred due to the mechanical problem i.e., steering rod of the bus was cut,
that he has lost control over the bus which resulted in the accident. In cross-
examination, he has admitted that before taking out the bus from the depot,
he has to verify the running condition of the bus, that when he took the bus
from depot, it was in good condition, that 4 persons died in the said
accident, that the bus has crossed centre median and dashed against the
vehicles coming from opposite side, that departmental enquiry is going on
against him. He has denied the suggestions that there was no mechanical
defect for the accident, that the police have filed charge sheet against him,
that the accident has occurred due to his negligence, that to avoid
termination from service, he is deposing falsely. However, he has stated that
he has not filed complaint regarding mechanical defect before police. The
admissions of the RW-1 go against the defence of the respondent. There is
no corroboration to the evidence of RW-1 to prove that the accident has
occurred due to the mechanical defect and there was no negligence on the
part of the said driver. On the contrary, the petitioners have produced
copies of police records namely FIR with complaint, panchanama, IMV
report, sketch, PM report, Inquest report and charge sheet which are
marked as Ex.P1 to 7, 17, 18, 26 and 27. PM report and inquest reports
support the version of PW-1 to 3 regarding death of deceased persons and
cause for their death. On the basis of oral evidence of PW-1 to 3 and
contents of PM reports and inquests reports, it can be held that Aslam
SCCH-14 13 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
Ahmed, Syed Muneer and Khadar Nawaz Khan died due to injuries
sustained by them in the accident. Admission of RW-1 regarding death of 4
persons in the accident goes in favour of the petitioners. Ex.P1 to 4 and 7
disclose that the Banaswadi Traffic police have registered Cr.No.154/2014
on the basis of information given by Ramesh, investigated the matter and
filed charge sheet against the driver of BMTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-3724
for the offences punishable U/s 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of IPC and U/s 187
and 177 of M.V.Act. PW-4 Ramesh is none other than the first informant.
There was no delay in lodging complaint. Panchanama and sketch go to
show that the bus by crossing the centre median, has dashed the opposite
coming vehicles, that the deceased persons and others named in the charge
sheet have sustained simple and grievous injuries and the deceased persons
died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by them in the said accident.
IMV report at Ex.P3 falsifies the evidence of RW-1 and defence of the
respondent. IMV authority has not mentioned about cutting of steering rod
of the bus and occurrence of accident due to the mechanical defect. The
damages caused to the vehicle shown in Ex.P3 indicate the impact of the
accident. Charge sheet filed by the police is prima facie evidence as to
negligence of the driver of the bus. There is nothing on record to disbelieve
the contents of charge sheet. Evidence of RW-1 remained uncorroborated.
Moreover, IMV report is contradictory to his evidence. Hence, I am of the
opinion that evidence of RW-1 is unbelievable and unacceptable. On the
other hand, evidence of PW-1 to 4 and 6 contents of Ex.P1 to 7, 17, 18, 26
and 27 substantiate the averments of the petitions regarding manner of
accident, negligence of the driver of the bus for the occurrence of accident
and the death of deceased persons due to the injuries sustained by them in
the accident. Therefore, I hold that the petitioners have succeeded to prove
these issues and I answer the same in affirmative
SCCH-14 14 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
12. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.887/2015: The petitioners have
pleaded that they are the wife, children and mother of the deceased, that
they were depending upon the income of the deceased and hence, they are
entitled for compensation for the unnatural death of the deceased. The
respondent has generally denied the case of the petitioners. But, he has
admitted the payment of interim compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the
petitioners after the accident. The said admission goes to show that the
petitioners are the LRs of the deceased.
13. PW-1 Salma is the petitioner No.1 and she has stated that she is
the wife, the petitioner No.2 and 3 are the children and the petitioner No.4
is the mother of the deceased. Her evidence regarding the relationship
between the petitioners and the deceased is unchallenged. The petitioners
have produced copies of their Adhaar card, birth certificates and School
certificates of the petitioner No.2 and 3, Copy of Adhaar card of the
deceased which are marked as Ex.P8 to 15. Inquest report at Ex.P6 reveals
that the deceased has left behind his wife, children and his mother. Oral
evidence of PW-1 and contents of Ex.P6, 8 to 15 substantiate the
averments of the petition regarding the relationship between the
petitioners and the deceased. The petitioners are the
Class-I heirs of the deceased. They are the legal representatives and
dependents of the deceased. The counsel for the respondent has pointed
out the admission of PW-1 that all of them are looked after by her mother.
The said admission is not sufficient to believe that the petitioners were not
depending upon the income of the deceased. Hence, I hold that the
petitioners are the dependents of the deceased and are entitled for a
compensation for unnatural of death of the deceased.
SCCH-14 15 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
14. PW-1 Salma has deposed that her husband was aged 40 years,
was working as a cook and earning Rs.20,000/- pm., that her husband
was also working as helper on part time basis at Hanifia Real Estate,
Kushal Nagar Main Road, Bangalore on a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-,
that if her husband were alive, he would have earned Rs.50,000/- per
month in future. Evidence of PW-1 is as per averments of the petition.
Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from PW-1 to disbelieve her
evidence regarding occupation and income of the deceased, but there is no
corroboration to the evidence of PW-1 regarding occupation and income
of the deceased. Salary certificate at Ex.P16 discloses that the deceased
was working as helper on part time basis in Hanifia Real Estate, Bangalore
and was getting monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioners have not
examined the author of salary certificate. Under the circumstances,
contents of Ex.P16 can not be believed. IO has recorded the occupation of
the deceased while drawing Inquest mahazar. Copy of inquest mahazar is
at Ex.P6 and it reveals that the deceased was a cook by profession. There
is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of inquest mahazar
regarding occupation of the deceased. Copy of Adhaar card of the
deceased is at Ex.P16 wherein the date of birth of the deceased is
mentioned as 01.01.1972. It means, the deceased was aged 42 years on the
date of accident. Age of the deceased is shown as 40 years in inquest
mahazar, but there is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of
Adhaar card regarding age of the deceased. Hence, I hold that the
deceased was aged 42 years and was working as a cook. Appropriate
multiplier for the age of the deceased is 14. Since, there is no
corroboration to the evidence of PW-1 regarding income, I am inclined to
assess his income notionally @ Rs.8,000/- per month. His annual income
SCCH-14 16 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
comes to Rs.96,000/-. Since, the deceased was aged 42 years, 30% of
amount shall be added towards future prospects as per the rulings relied
upon by the petitioners. After addition of 30% amount, gross income of
the deceased comes to Rs.1,24,800/- pa., The petitioners are the
dependents of the deceased. They are 4 in number. Hence, 1/4th of amount
shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. After
deduction of 1/4th amount, the net income of the deceased comes to
Rs.93,600/- pa., The petitioners have lost their dependency due to the
death of the deceased in the accident. Therefore, loss of dependency of the
petitioners would be Rs.93,600X14=Rs.13,10,400/- which can be rounded
to Rs.13,11,000/-.
15. The petitioners have lost love and affection of the deceased and
lost estate of the deceased. The petitioner No.1 has lost marital life due to
death of the deceased. The petitioners have spent amount for
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. There is no
documentary evidence regarding expenses made for transportation and
funeral. However, the petitioners are entitled for reasonable sum as
compensation under the said head. Hence, I am of the opinion that the
petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards loss of
love and affection, Rs.60,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/-
towards loss of consortium to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.30,000/-
towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, the
petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
SCCH-14 17 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,11,000/-
2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 60,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs. 60,000/-
4. Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/-
5. Transportation of dead body and Rs. 30,000/-
funeral expenses
Total Rs.14,86,000/-
16. The petitioners have already received Rs.15,000/- from the
respondent. Hence, they are entitled for a compensation of Rs.14,71,000/-.
They are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till
the date of payment. The respondent is vicariously liable to pay
compensation and interest to the petitioners as stated above. They are
entitled to share the compensation amount and proportionate interest as
under;
Petitioner No.1 : Rs.4,71,000/-
Petitioner No.2 : Rs.4,00,000/-
Petitioner No.3 : Rs.4,00,000/-
Petitioner No.4 : Rs.2,00,000/-
Hence, I answer the issue as above.
17. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.888/2015: The petitioners have
pleaded that they are the wife and children of the deceased, that they were
depending upon the income of the deceased and hence, they are entitled for
compensation for the unnatural death of the deceased. The respondent has
generally denied the case of the petitioners. But, he has admitted the
payment of interim compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioners after the
accident. The said admission goes to show that the petitioners are the LRs
of the deceased.
SCCH-14 18 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
18. PW-2 Meharunissa is the petitioner No.1 and she has stated that
she is the wife and other petitioners are the children of the deceased. Her
evidence regarding the relationship between the petitioners and the
deceased is unchallenged. The petitioners have produced copy of Adhaar
card of the deceased, copies of their Adhaar cards, copy of ration card and
School certificates of the petitioner No.2 and 4 which are marked as
Ex.P19 to 24. Inquest report at Ex.P18 reveals that the deceased has left
behind his wife and children. Oral evidence of PW-2 and contents of
Ex.P18 to 24 substantiate the averments of the petition regarding the
relationship between the petitioners and the deceased. The petitioners are
the Class-I heirs of the deceased. They are the legal representatives and
dependents of the deceased. Hence, I hold that the petitioners are the
dependents of the deceased and are entitled for a compensation for
unnatural of death of the deceased.
19. PW-2 Meharunnisa has deposed that her husband was aged 43
years, was working as a carpenter at Woodlands Furniture, Bangalore and
was earning Rs.20,000/- pm., that if her husband were alive, he would
have earned Rs.50,000/- per month in future. Evidence of PW-2 is as per
averments of the petition. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from
PW-2 to disbelieve her evidence regarding occupation and income of the
deceased, but there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-2 regarding
occupation and income of the deceased. Salary certificate at Ex.P25
discloses that the deceased was working as a carpenter in Woodlands
Furniture, Bangalore and was getting monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- and
daily allowance of Rs.100/-. The petitioners have not examined the author
of salary certificate. Under the circumstances, contents of Ex.P25 can not
be believed. IO has not recorded the occupation of the deceased while
SCCH-14 19 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
drawing Inquest mahazar. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the
oral evidence of PW-2 regarding occupation of the deceased. Copy of
Adhaar card of the deceased is at Ex.P19 wherein the year of birth of the
deceased is mentioned as 1973. It means, the deceased was aged 41 years
on the date of accident. Age of the deceased is shown as 43 years in
inquest mahazar, but there is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents
of Adhaar card regarding age of the deceased. Hence, I hold that the
deceased was aged 41 years and was working as a carpenter. Appropriate
multiplier for the age of the deceased is 14. Since, there is no
corroboration to the evidence of PW-2 regarding income, I am inclined to
assess his income notionally @ Rs.8,000/- per month. His annual income
comes to Rs.96,000/-. Since, the deceased was aged 41 years, 30% of
amount shall be added towards future prospects as per the rulings relied
upon by the petitioners. After addition of 30% amount, gross income of
the deceased comes to Rs.1,24,800/-pa., The petitioners are the
dependents of the deceased. They are 4 in number. Hence, 1/4th of amount
shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. After
deduction of 1/4th amount, the net income of the deceased comes to
Rs.93,600/- pa., The petitioners have lost their dependency due to the
death of the deceased in the accident. Therefore, loss of dependency of the
petitioners would be Rs.93,600X14=Rs.13,10,400/- which can be rounded
to Rs.13,11,000/-.
20. The petitioners have lost love and affection of the deceased and
lost estate of the deceased. The petitioner No.1 has lost marital life due to
death of the deceased. The petitioners have spent amount for
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. There is no
documentary evidence regarding expenses made for transportation and
SCCH-14 20 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
funeral. However, the petitioners are entitled for reasonable sum as
compensation under the said head. Hence, I am of the opinion that the
petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards loss of
love and affection, Rs.60,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/-
towards loss of consortium to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.30,000/-
towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, the
petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,11,000/-
2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 60,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs. 60,000/-
4. Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/-
5. Transportation of dead body and Rs. 30,000/-
funeral expenses
Total Rs.14,86,000/-
21. The petitioners have already received Rs.15,000/- from the
respondent. Hence, they are entitled for a compensation of Rs.14,71,000/-.
They are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till
the date of payment. The respondent is vicariously liable to pay
compensation and interest to the petitioners as stated above. They are
entitled to share the compensation amount and proportionate interest as
under;
Petitioner No.1 : Rs.4,21,000/-
Petitioner No.2 to 4 : Rs.3,50,000/- each
Hence, I answer the issue as above.
22. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.889/2015: The petitioners have
pleaded that they are the wife and children of the deceased, that they were
depending upon the income of the deceased and hence, they are entitled for
compensation for the unnatural death of the deceased. The respondent has
SCCH-14 21 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
generally denied the case of the petitioners. But, he has admitted the
payment of interim compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioners after the
accident. The said admission goes to show that the petitioners are the LRs
of the deceased.
23. PW-3 Naseeran Taj is the petitioner No.1 and she has stated that
she is the wife and other petitioners are the children of the deceased. Her
evidence regarding the relationship between the petitioners and the
deceased is unchallenged. The petitioners have produced copy of Adhaar
card of petitioner No.1, copy of voter ID of the deceased and the petitioner
No.2 and 3 and copy of driving license of the deceased which are marked
as Ex.P28 to 32. Inquest report at Ex.P27 reveals that the deceased has left
behind his wife and children. Oral evidence of PW-3 and contents of
Ex.P27 to 32 substantiate the averments of the petition regarding the
relationship between the petitioners and the deceased. The petitioners are
the Class-I heirs of the deceased. They are the legal representatives and
dependents of the deceased. Hence, I hold that the petitioners are the
dependents of the deceased and are entitled for a compensation for
unnatural of death of the deceased.
24. PW-3 Nasreen Taj has deposed that her husband was aged 60
years, was working as a driver and was earning Rs.15,000/- pm., that if
her husband were alive, he would have earned Rs.30,000/- per month in
future. Evidence of PW-3 is as per averments of the petition. Except bare
denials, nothing is elicited from PW-3 to disbelieve her evidence regarding
occupation and income of the deceased, but there is no corroboration to
the evidence of PW-3 regarding occupation and income of the deceased.
IO has not recorded the occupation of the deceased while drawing Inquest
mahazar. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral evidence of
SCCH-14 22 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
PW-3 regarding occupation of the deceased. Ex.P32 discloses that the
deceased was holding a licence to drive a 3 wheeler cab, a transport
vehicle and a PSV bus. Copy of voter ID at Ex.P29 discloses that the
deceased was aged 53 years on 01.01.2002. His date of birth is shown as
23.10.1946 in Ex.P32. The date of birth mentioned in driving license at
Ex.P32 can be accepted as correct. It means, the deceased was aged 68
years on the date of accident. Hence, I hold that the deceased was aged 68
years and was working as a driver. Appropriate multiplier for the age of
the deceased is 5. Since, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-3
regarding income, I am inclined to assess his income notionally @
Rs.8,000/- per month. His annual income comes to Rs.96,000/-. Since,
the deceased was aged 68 years, there can not be any addition towards
future prospects. The petitioners are the dependents of the deceased. They
are 3 in number. Hence, 1/3rd of amount shall be deducted towards
personal expenses of the deceased. After deduction of 1/3rd amount, the
net income of the deceased comes to Rs.64,000/- pa., The petitioners
have lost their dependency due to the death of the deceased in the
accident. Therefore, loss of dependency of the petitioners would be
Rs.64,000X5=Rs.3,20,000/-.
25. The petitioners have lost love and affection of the deceased and
lost estate of the deceased. The petitioner No.1 has lost marital life due to
death of the deceased. The petitioners have spent amount for
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. There is no
documentary evidence regarding expenses made for transportation and
funeral. However, the petitioners are entitled for reasonable sum as
compensation under the said head. Hence, I am of the opinion that the
petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.45,000/- towards loss of
SCCH-14 23 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
love and affection, Rs.45,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/-
towards loss of consortium to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.30,000/-
towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, the
petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.3,20,000/-
2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 45,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs. 45,000/-
4. Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/-
5. Transportation of dead body and Rs. 30,000/-
funeral expenses
Total Rs.4,65,000/-
26. The petitioners have already received Rs.15,000/- from the
respondent. Hence, they are entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-.
They are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till
the date of payment. The respondent is vicariously liable to pay
compensation and interest to the petitioners as stated above. They are
entitled to share the compensation amount and proportionate interest as
under;
Petitioner No.1 : Rs.2,50,000/-
Petitioner No.2 & 3 : Rs.1,00,000/- each
Hence, I answer the issue as above.
27. 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.887/15, MVC No.888/15 and MVC No.889/2015 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
SCCH-14 24 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015The petitioners in MVC.No.887/15 and the petitioners in MVC No.888/2015 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.14,71,000/- in each case. The petitioners in MVC No.889/15 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- They are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petitions till the date of payment.
The respondent is liable to pay compensation of Rs.14,71,000/-, Rs.14,71,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively and he 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 amount with proportionate interest as under:
IN MVC No.887/2015 Petitioner No.1 : Rs.4,71,000/- Petitioner No.2 : Rs.4,00,000/- Petitioner No.3 : Rs.4,00,000/- Petitioner No.4 : Rs.2,00,000/- IN MVC No.888/2015 Petitioner No.1 : Rs.4,21,000/- Petitioner No.2 to 4: Rs.3,50,000/- each IN MVC No.889/2015 Petitioner No.1 : Rs.2,50,000/- Petitioner No.2 & 3: Rs.1,00,000/- each SCCH-14 25 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015 After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- each out of the share of the petitioner No.1 in MVC No.887/15 and 888/15 shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for 3 years. Balance amount and interest awarded in the said cases in favour of the petitioner No.1 respectively shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification. Rs.1,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.4 in MVC No.887/15 shall be deposited in her name in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years and balance amount with interest shall be released in her favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Entire share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 in MVC No.887/15 and of the petitioner No.2 to 4 in MVC No.888/15 shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank till they attain majority under guardianship of their respective mother.
Rs.1,00,000/- out of the share of petitioner No.1 and Rs.50,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 in MVC No.889/15 shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or cooperative bank. Balance amount and interest shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.SCCH-14 26 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.887/2015 and copy of the same in MVC.No.888/2015 and 889/2015.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 12th day of February 2016.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 27 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS: SCCH-14 PW.1 Salma PW.2 Meharunnisa PW.3 Nasreen Taj PW.4 Ramesh Respondents :
RW.1 Muragendra S Pojari Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint E.xP2 - Copy of Panchanama Ex.P3 - Copy of IMV report Ex.P4 - Copy of Sketch Ex.P5 - Copy of PM report Ex.P6 - Copy of Inquest report Ex.P7 - Copy of charge sheet Ex.P8 - Copy of Adhaar card of Salma Ex.P9 - Copy of Adhaar card of Faiza Firdose Ex.P10- Copy of Adhaar card of Iliyas Ahmed Ex.P11 - Copy of Adhaar card of Saleema Bi Ex.P12- Copy of Adhaar card of Deceased Ex.P13- Copy of Birth certificate of Faiza Firdose Ex.P14- Copy of Birth certificate of Iliyas Ahmed Ex.P15- School Certificates (2 in nos) Ex.P16- Salary Certificate of the deceased Ex.P17 - Copy of PM report Ex.P18- Copy of Inquest report Ex.P19- Copy of Adhaar card of Deceased Ex.P20- Copy of Adhaar card of Syed Shoaib Ex.P21- Copy of Adhaar card of Syed Shadab Ex.P22- Copy of Adhaar card of Arshiya Begum Ex.P23- Copy of Ration Card Ex.P24- Study certificates (2 in nos) Ex.P25- Salary certificate of deceased Ex.P26- Copy of PM report E.xP27- Copy of Inquest report Ex.P28- Copy of Adhaar card of Nasreen Taj SCCH-14 28 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015 Ex.P29- Copy of Voter ID of Deceased Ex.P30- Copy of Voter ID of Kaneez Fathima Ex.P31- Copy of Voter ID of Mudasir Ali Khan Ex.P32- Copy of Driving licence of Khadhar Nawaz Khan Respondent's NIL XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 29 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
Dt.12.02.2016 P-PR R-MMC 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.887/15, MVC No.888/15 and MVC No.889/2015 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners in MVC.No.887/15 and the petitioners in MVC No.888/2015 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.14,71,000/- in each case. The petitioners in MVC No.889/15 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- They are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petitions till the date of payment.
The respondent is liable to pay compensation of Rs.14,71,000/-, Rs.14,71,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively and he 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 amount with proportionate interest as under:
IN MVC No.887/2015 Petitioner No.1 : Rs.4,71,000/-
Petitioner No.2 : Rs.4,00,000/-
Petitioner No.3 : Rs.4,00,000/-
Petitioner No.4 : Rs.2,00,000/-SCCH-14 30 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015
IN MVC No.888/2015 Petitioner No.1 : Rs.4,21,000/-
Petitioner No.2 to 4: Rs.3,50,000/- each IN MVC No.889/2015 Petitioner No.1 : Rs.2,50,000/-
Petitioner No.2 & 3: Rs.1,00,000/- each After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- each out of the share of the petitioner No.1 in MVC No.887/15 and 888/15 shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for 3 years. Balance amount and interest awarded in the said cases in favour of the petitioner No.1 respectively shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification. Rs.1,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.4 in MVC No.887/15 shall be deposited in her name in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years and balance amount with interest shall be released in her favour through account payee cheque with proper identification. Entire share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 in MVC No.887/15 and of the petitioner No.2 to 4 in MVC No.888/15 shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank till they attain majority under guardianship of their respective mother. Rs.1,00,000/- out of the share of petitioner No.1 and Rs.50,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 in MVC No.889/15 shall be deposited in their respective names SCCH-14 31 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015 in any nationalized, scheduled or cooperative bank. Balance amount and interest shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification. The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.887/2015 and copy of the same in MVC.No.888/2015 and 889/2015.
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.887, 888 & 889/2015
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.887/2015, 888/2015 & 889/2015 Petitioners in MVC No.887/2015 1. Smt.Salma W/o Late Aslam Ahmed, Aged about 33 years.
2. Kum.Faiza Firdose, D/o Late Aslam Ahmed, Aged about 14 years.
3. Master.Iliyas Ahmed, S/o Late Aslam Ahmed, Aged about 10 years.
4.Smt.Saleema Bi, W/o Late Nazir Ahmed, Aged about 60 years.
Petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors, represented by natural guardian and mother 1st petitioner herein.
All are residing at No.263, 17th cross, Govindapura, Arabic College post. Bangalore-560045 (By pleader Sri PR) Petitioners in MVC No.888/2015 1. Smt.Meharunnisa, W/o Syed Muneer, Aged about 36 years.
2. Master Syed Shoaib, S/o Late Syed Muneer, Aged about 14 years.
3. Master.Syed Shadab, S/o Late Syed Muneer, Aged about 12 years.
SCCH-14 33 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/20154.Kum.Arshiya Begum, D/o Late Syed Munner, Aged about 7 years.
Petitioners No.2 to 4 are minors, represented by natural guardian and mother 1st petitioner herein.
All are residing at No.6/13, 'B' street, Slaughter House, H.K.P.Road, Shivajinagar, Bangalore - 560051.
(By pleader Sri PR) Petitioners in MVC No.889/2015 1. Smt.Nasreen Taj, W/o Khadar Nawaz Khan, Aged about 58 years.
2.Kum.Kaneez Fathima Khanam, D/o Khadar Nawaz Khan, Aged about 24 years.
3. Mohsin Khan, S/o Khadar Nawaz Khan, Aged about 22 years.
All are residing at No.18/B, 2nd Cross,2nd main, SRK Garden, Tilak Nagar, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560041.
(By pleader Sri PR) Vs Respondent in all the cases THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.M.T.C. Depot, Bangalore Central Offices, K.G Road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore-27.
(By pleader Sri MMK) SCCH-14 34 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015 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 in MVC No.887/15, MVC No.888/15 and MVC No.889/2015 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners in MVC.No.887/15 and the petitioners in MVC No.888/2015 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.14,71,000/- in each case. The petitioners in MVC No.889/15 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- They are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petitions till the date of payment.
The respondent is liable to pay compensation of Rs.14,71,000/-, Rs.14,71,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively and he is directed SCCH-14 35 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015 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 amount with proportionate interest as under:
IN MVC No.887/2015 Petitioner No.1 : Rs.4,71,000/- Petitioner No.2 : Rs.4,00,000/- Petitioner No.3 : Rs.4,00,000/- Petitioner No.4 : Rs.2,00,000/- IN MVC No.888/2015 Petitioner No.1 : Rs.4,21,000/- Petitioner No.2 to 4: Rs.3,50,000/- each IN MVC No.889/2015 Petitioner No.1 : Rs.2,50,000/- Petitioner No.2 & 3: Rs.1,00,000/- each After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- each out of the share of the petitioner No.1 in MVC No.887/15 and 888/15 shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for 3 years. Balance amount and interest awarded in the said cases in favour of the petitioner No.1 respectively shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification. Rs.1,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.4 in MVC No.887/15 shall be deposited in her name in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years and SCCH-14 36 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015 balance amount with interest shall be released in her favour through account payee cheque with proper identification. Entire share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 in MVC No.887/15 and of the petitioner No.2 to 4 in MVC No.888/15 shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank till they attain majority under guardianship of their respective mother. Rs.1,00,000/- out of the share of petitioner No.1 and Rs.50,000/- out of the share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 in MVC No.889/15 shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or cooperative bank. Balance amount and interest shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification. The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.887/2015 and copy of the same in MVC.No.888/2015 and 889/2015.
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 37 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015 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 38 MVC No.887, 888 & 889/2015