Bangalore District Court
Laxmidevi Alias Lakshmidevi vs Narasimaiah .M on 1 July, 2024
SCCH-23 1 MVC. No.3618/2022
KABC020200822022
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
(SCCH-23)
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JULY - 2024
PRESENT: Sri. Aalok. A.N
B.B.A. LL.B,
XXI ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
MVC. No.3618/2022
Petitioners : 1. Smt. Laxmidevi @ Lakshmidevi,
W/o Samala Bhaskar Reddy
@ Bhaskar Reddy,
Aged about 44 years.
2. Sri. Samala Bhaskar Reddy
@ Bhaskar Reddy,
S/o Narasimha Reddy,
Aged about 50 years.
3. Sri. Shamala Mohan Reddy,
S/o Samala Bhaskar Reddy
@ Bhaskar Reddy,
Aged about 23 years.
All are R/at : Chellavaripalli,
Obuladevaracheruvu,
Ananthapura,
Andhra Pradesh515561
(By Advocate: Sri. R.V. Raghavendra)
SCCH-23 2 MVC. No.3618/2022
v/s
Respondents : 1) Sri. Narasimaiah. M,
S/o Mariyappa,
No.D13, Mariyappa Building,
Rayan Nagar,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District-562123
(RC owner of lorry bearing Reg.
No.KA-52-9381)
(Exparte)
2) Liberty General Ins.Co.Ltd.,
No.1, Alyssa, 1st Floor Rear Portion
Old No.28, New No.23,
Richmond Road, Richmond Town,
Benglauru-560025.
(Policy No.2013-500201-21-7000673-
00-001
valid from 21.08.2021 to 20.08.2022)
(By Advocate: Sri.Kiran Pujar)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death caused in a Road Traffic accident.
2. Brief case of the petitioner in the nutshell:
It is the case of the petitioner that, on 22.09.2022 at about 3.30 p.m, when the deceased Samala Hemanth Kumar Reddy was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP- 39-CG-8442 on the extreme left side of NH-44 Hyderabad Road by observing all the traffic rules and when he reached SCCH-23 3 MVC. No.3618/2022 near Vapasandra Flyover Bridge, Chikkaballapura Town, Chikkaballapura District, the driver of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-9381 was moving ahead of the motorcycle and driven the same with high speed in a zig-zag manner in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and without observing any of the traffic rules and regulations, without giving any signal or indication he steered towards his extreme left and stopped the said lorry. As a result of which, the deceased who was coming in the back side of the lorry, tried his best to control his vehicle, but came in contact to the hind portion of the lorry. Due to the terrific impact deceased fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident the deceased was shifted to Chikkaballapura Government Hospital, wherein the duty doctors tried their best to save the life, but the deceased breathed his last during the course of treatment i.e., on the same day. Postmortem examination was conducted and the corpse was handed over to the family members, who transported it to their native place and performed funeral & obsequies ceremonies by spending substantial amount.
3. The petitioners further urged that, prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 25 years. He was working as Associate Consultant in M/s Capgemini - Altran Technologies India Pvt.Ltd., and drawing salary of Rs.62,588/- p.m. Further the contention of the SCCH-23 4 MVC. No.3618/2022 petitioners is that, petitioner No.1 & 2 are the parents and petitioner No.3 is the brother of the deceased and they are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased and due to unexpected death of deceased, they have undergone mental agony and shock and lost bread earning member of the family. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending lorry bearing Reg.No.KA- 52-9381. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry and as such, the respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the both petitioners. Contending the above facts, they pray to grant for compensation with interest and cost.
4. Summons was duly served to respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 did not appear before this Tribunal. Hence he was placed exparte.
5. The respondent No.2 spurred in rush to the Court by filing written statement contending that the petition is not maintainable either law or on facts. The respondent No.2 admitting the issuance of insurance policy in respect of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-9381. However the liability if any is pleaded to be subject to the terms & conditions of the policy. This respondent specifically and empathically denied the occurrence, mode and manner of accident and also involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Further the SCCH-23 5 MVC. No.3618/2022 respondent No.2 has contended that, the owner and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provision of Sections 147, 149, 134(C) and 158(6) of M.V.Act. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The deceased is the sole architect and responsible for the alleged accident, as he was drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner he dashed the lorry from behind. Hence the driver of lorry was no way responsible for the accident and the death of the deceased. In fact the deceased was also not wearing helmet and also not possessing valid DL at the time of alleged accident. Without prejudice to the above contentions it is averred that, the driver of the lorry did not possess valid & effective driving licence at the time of the accident. On account of willful breach of the terms & conditions of the policy by the insured, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify him. Further denied all the allegation made in the petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues were framed :
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioners prove that they are the only legal representatives of deceased 'Samala Hemanth Kumar Reddy' and were dependent on him ?
2) Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained SCCH-23 6 MVC. No.3618/2022 in a road traffic accident that occurred on 22.06.2022 at about 3.30 p.m, near Vapasandra Fly over bridge, NH-44 road, Chikkaballapura Town, Chikkaballapura District, due to actionable negligence of the driver of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-9381 ?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
4) What order or award ?
7. Petitioner No.2 examined himself as PW.1. Ex's.P1 to 24 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners have also examined the Senior Manager of HR at Capegemini was examined as PW.2. Ex.P25 to 29 were marked through him. An eye-witness to the accident in question : Sri.Shankar Reddy was examined as PW.3. Ex.P.30 was marked through him. In order to prove the defence, the respondent No.2 got examined the driver of the insured lorry as RW.1. Further the respondent No.2 examined the Area Manager Legal of respondent No.2 insurance company examined as RW.2 and got marked Ex.R.1 document.
8. Heard erudite counsel for the petitioners and respondent counsel on merits. Perused the entire materials placed on record.
SCCH-23 7 MVC. No.3618/20229. This tribunal answers to the above issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the
following :
REASONS
10. ISSUE NO.2 : As this is issue clinches the whole dispute in controversy, as such this issue is taken for discussion at the inception. The petitioners have knocked the doors of justice with a relief to grant award compensation on account of death of one Samala Hemanth Kumar Reddy in a Road Traffic Accident. Before dwelling into analyzing the disputed facts in issue it is relevant to have the birds eye of the case of petitioners in the nutshell.
11. It is the case of petitioners that, the deceased Samala Hemanth Kumar Reddy on 22.09.2022 at about 3.30 p.m, he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP- 39-CG-8442 on the extreme left side of NH-44 Hyderabad Road by observing all the traffic rules and when he reached near Vapasandra Flyover Bridge, Chikkaballapura Town, Chikkaballapura District, the driver of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-9381 was moving ahead of the motorcycle and SCCH-23 8 MVC. No.3618/2022 driven the same with high speed in a zig-zag manner in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and without observing any of the traffic rules and regulations, without giving any signal or indication he steered towards his extreme left and stopped the said lorry. As a result of which, the deceased who was coming in the back side of the lorry, tried his best to control his vehicle, but came in contact to the hind portion of the lorry. Due to the terrific impact deceased fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident the deceased was shifted to Chikkaballapura Government Hospital, wherein the duty doctors tried their best to save the life, but the deceased breathed his last during the course of treatment i.e., on the same day. Postmortem examination was conducted and the corpse was handed over to the family members, who transported it to their native place and performed funeral & obsequies ceremonies by spending substantial amount.
12. It is submitted that, the deceased was working as Associate Consultant in M/s Capgemini - Altran Technologies India Pvt.Ltd., and drawing salary of Rs.62,588/- p.m. as the petitioners were solely dependent on the income of the deceased. It is categorically urged that, the accident happened because of the rash and negligent act of the lorry driver and as such the respondents are jointly and SCCH-23 9 MVC. No.3618/2022 severally liable to pay compensation. Hence prayed to award compensation to the tune of Rs.2 crores.
13. In order to substantiate the contentions of the petitioners, the petitioner No.2 stepped into the witness box and filed his affidavit-in-lieu of oral examination-in-chief as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 documents. Further the petitioners have also examined the Senior Manager of HR at Capegemini was examined as PW.2. Ex.P25 to 29 were marked through him. An eye-witness to the accident in question : Sri.Shankar Reddy was examined as PW.3. Ex.P.30 was marked through him. Further more in order to nullify the claim of the petitioners and to substantiate the defence of the respondents the respondent No.2 counsel has cross examined PW.1 to 3 at length.
14. Repelling to the contentions urged by the petitioners, the respondent No.2 has attacked the case of the petitioners on various prisms known to facts and law. The first and foremost contention urged by the respondent No.2 is that, there is a rash and negligent act by the side of deceased himself as such for the rash and negligent act of the deceased, the insured vehicle driver cannot be made liable. It is contended that, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation amount. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
SCCH-23 10 MVC. No.3618/202215. In support of these contentions the respondent No.2 got examined the driver of the insured lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-9831 as RW.1 Further the respondent No.2 also examined its Area Manager- Legal of respondent No.2 company as RW.2 and got marked Ex.R.1 document. In order to falsify the defence of the respondent No.2 and to substantiate the case of the petitioners, the petitioners counsel cross examined the RW.1 & 2 at length.
16. Before dwelling in to analyze dispute facts in issue at inception it is relevant to have the undisputed facts. It is not in dispute that, one Samala Hemanth Kumar Reddy has breathed his last because of RTA on 22.06.2022. Further it is also not in dispute about the coverage of policy and involvement of the vehicle. Both the rival parties counsel have strenuously canvassed their arguments placing reliance of factum of negligence.
17. It is needless to state that the factum of negligence has to be proved independently Before dwelling into analyzing the factum of alleged negligence it is relevant to have the conceptual aspects pertaining to factum of negligence. There are four basic elements that a person has to fulfill in order to do a negligent act. These elements are as follows:
SCCH-23 11 MVC. No.3618/2022Duty: For committing a negligent act, there must be some duty on the part of the defendant. Here it is important to understand whether the defendant has taken legal duty of care towards the plaintiff.
Breach of Duty: After fulfilling the first criteria the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has breached the legal duty imposed on him/her. It talks about the breach of duty on the part of the defendant which he/ she is expected to do as he/ she has some legal duty towards the plaintiff.
The action of causing something: It means that the damage caused to the plaintiff is due to the act of the defendant. Here the defendant may do an act which is not expected from him/ her or the defendant may be negligent in not doing an act which was expected from him/ her.
Damages: At last what matters is, there must be some damage/injury that is caused to the plaintiff and this damages should be the direct consequence of the defendant's act.
Negligence means a breach of duty caused by omission to do something which has reasonable man guide by those consideration which ordinarily regulated conduct of human affairs would do which a prudent man would not do. In common prevalence negligence connoted to the want of proper SCCH-23 12 MVC. No.3618/2022 care and the rashness conveys the idea of recklessness or the doing of an act without due consideration.
18. Now let me test the factual matrix in the light of settled principle of law. From the evidence placed on record it is crystal clear that, there is no qualm with the fact that, petitioner was a rider of the two wheeler. The only dispute in controversy is as to the alleged rash and negligent act of the offending vehicle.
19. Now let me unfurl each of the contention urged by the rival parties in the beacon of light of documentary and oral evidence placed on record. This court is aware of fact that, the factum of negligence as to be proved like any other fact in issue. It is trite law from plethora of decision that, mere filing of chargesheet is not a trump card for the success of the petitioner case in MACT case so as to prove the negligence. The petitioners are bestowed with the burden to prove the negligence and rashness like a matter of fact. With this prelude in the backdrop let me analyze the conceptional aspects as to negligence.
20. On dissection of materials placed on record, after marshaling of facts in issue and after hearing erudite counsel appearing for combating parties, this Tribunal opines that this issue is pregmented with inner issues such as :
1) Whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle (deceased) ?SCCH-23 13 MVC. No.3618/2022
2) Whether non possessing of DL by the deceased adds the contributory negligence ?
3) Whether non wearing of helmet is a cause for death of the deceased and this court can impute contributory negligence for not wearing helmet ?
21. Now let me analyze the case of the petitioners in the beacon of light of oral and documentary proof. The petitioners in order to prove the factum of negligence have placed their reliance of Ex.P.1 to 11 documents which are the police records. Ex.P.1 is the FIR filed as against the driver of the lorry. The said FIR has its germane in Ex.P.2 complaint. In Ex.P.1 FIR also the manner of accident was ventilated. It is the specific case of the petitioners that, the lorry driver who was moving ahead of the two wheeler of the deceased without giving any indications suddenly steered towards the extreme left side and stopped the said lorry, in that process the accident occurred. It is undisputed fact that the accident is happened on in NH-44. It is needles to state that, in National Highways all he vehicles will ply in a high speed. One of the document which sheds light pertaining to the factum of negligence is Ex.P.3 and 5 being the spot mahazar and Sketch. This court gave anxious consideration with astuteness to the above said document. On close perusal of the above said documents it reflects that, the accident happened in the two wheeler lane which is also categorically SCCH-23 14 MVC. No.3618/2022 admitted by RW.1 during the course of his cross- examination. The contents of Ex.P.5 discloses that the road is 20 feet in width. The accident happened in the extreme left edge of the road. Much was vociferously canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the deceased himself by riding his vehicle in high speed and dashed hind side of the lorry and he is sole architect of the accident. This vehement contention urged by the respondent No.2 is stoutly denied the by petitioners counsel urging that accident had happened because of the negligence on the part of the lorry driver.
22. The respondent No.2 has also made an endevour to examine the driver of the lorry is RW.2. During the course of his chief-examination only he had stated that he was going on the right side of the road and he had taken the lorry to the left side of the road at that time he heard the noise when he got down from the lorry he could discover that the two wheeler had dashed the lorry from hind side. From his chief examination it is clearly emanating that, in the inception he was going in the right side and he himself had taken his lorry to the left side of the road. Later when he was subjected to the litmus test of cross examination wherein he categorically admitted that, the accident had happened on the left side of the road in the two wheeler lane. He has also admitted that at the inception he was going on the right side. This categorical admission of RW.1 coupled with contents of SCCH-23 15 MVC. No.3618/2022 Ex.P.3 and 5 categorically reveals that the lorry driver was going on the right line had abruptly gone to the left lane which is cause of the accident.
23. This court could not trace negligence on the part of the deceased who was moving on the two wheeler lane. For the negligence on the part of the lorry driver the deceased cannot be penalized. Much was canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 by relying on the decision reported in 2014 AIR Scw 1081 in the case of Lachoorum and others v/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation wherein it was held that negligence has to be proved independently. Reverting back to the factual matrix in the instant case on hand the petitioners with the help of Ex.P.3 and 5 and also with the evidence of RW.1 they clearly demonstrated the negligence on the part of the lorry driver.
24. It is also relevant to note that, the petitioners has also examined the Eye-witness to the accident as PW.3 who has arrayed as CW.2 in Ex.P.11 Chargesheet. He has completely suported the case of the petitioners in his chief- examination. Only for the reason that he knows petitioners his chief examination cannot be distrusted.
25. Added more the respondent No.2 counsel has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2018 ACJ 1466 in the case of Nishan Singh and others V/s Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd, wherein by interpreting Regulation 23 of SCCH-23 16 MVC. No.3618/2022 Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 and held that the driver was expected to maintain safe distance between two vehicles rather safe distance the driver was negligent and responsible for the accident. In the instant case on hand the principles laid down therein cannot be made applicable for the simple reasons that in this case the lorry drier without taking any caution had suddenly and abruptly without giving any indication took his vehicle to the left side to the two wheeler lane. This decision would have lent an helping hand to the respondents if the accident had happened on the fastest lane. In the instant case on hand the accident had happened in the two wheeler lane. When such being the case the principles laid down therein cannot be made applicable to the instant case on hand.
26. Per contra in order to controvert the contention urged by the respondent No.2 the petitioner has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujrath reported in 2022 ACJ 2546 in the case of United India Insurance Co.Ltd., V/s Vandana Tripathi and others, wherein it is held that "It was on the contrary duty of the driver of the truck to take precaution while taking turn if at all needed and then apply brake after precaution. The evidence on record shows the contrary behaviour of the driver of the truck. It would not be out of place to take judicial notice of the fact that on national or express highway vehicles are not permitted to stop in between."
SCCH-23 17 MVC. No.3618/202227. The principles laid down therein squarely applicable to the case on hand. The petitioners have successfully demonstrated the manner of accident with the help of documentary and oral evidence. This Tribunal is aware of the fact that, there is an clear distinction between the driving the vehicle in a highway and driving the vehicle in a normal single road way within the muncipal area or other single roads without median. In a highway the speed of the vehicles will be more than 60 km per hour. Added more in the highway one has to maintain the lane discipline. No doubt the vehicles has to move in a highway keeping safe distance. In the instant petition the lorry was moving on the two wheeler lane which is opposed to the lane discipline and the lorry driver without giving any signals whatsoever had tried to drag the lorry to the left side which in turn put the deceased to a shock and out of the shock he could not control the vehicle and it is the cause for the accident.
28. Added more in order to substantiate the contentions of the petitioners, the petitioners have relied on the decision reported in ILR 2003 KAR 493 in the case of Mallamma V/s Balaji and others. Wherein it was held that no strict proof of evidence need not be applied in case of MACT to prove rash and negligent riding. The principles reiterated therein also applicable to the case on hand.
SCCH-23 18 MVC. No.3618/202229. Further more the Ex.P.8 IMV Report reveals that, there is no mechanical and technical defects in the vehicles. The another lap of arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 stating that, the deceased was not possessing any DL as such the deceased has also contributed for the accident. Hence it is stoutly argued that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased himself. In order to controvert the said contention, it is relevant to rely on the decision reported in 2008 ACJ 3981 (SC), in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana V/s Surinder Singh and others wherein it was held that 'mere non-possessing of DL cannot be held to be guilty of contributory negligence'. To put it differently, if a person drives a vehicle without a license, he commits an offence. The same by itself may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident.
30. As last row to the sinking boat it is vociferously argued by the respondent No.2 counsel is that deceased was not wearing helmet and he has contributed for negligence. In order to controvert the above said contention, the it is relevant to relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.79/2020 (Mohammad Siddique & another V/s National Insurance Company Ltd & others), wherein it is held that "Simply because there is a violation of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 by a victim in an accident, there is no presumption that there is contributory negligence on the part of the SCCH-23 19 MVC. No.3618/2022 person who was not wearing the helmet. It is to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case". That is to say, some other additional evidence is necessary to attribute contributory negligence to the deceased which is not adduced in this case. All the mist of doubt created by the respondent No.2 during the course of trail is demystified by the petitioners.
31. Added more further it is also relevant to rely on the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in MFA.101144/2020 (MV-I) in the case of Anand v/s Arjun and The Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., wherein also the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, had interpreted Sec.129 of IMV Act had also held that non wearing of helmet is not a ground to deny the compensation. As such this aspect puts a last nail to the coffin for the contention urged by the respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, contributory negligence cannot be imputed to the deceased. In this view of the matter, contributory negligence cannot be imputed to the deceased. The discussion supra makes it is abundantly clear that the accident occurred solely due to the rash negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. As such, this Tribunal answers issue No.2 In the Affirmative.
32. ISSUE NO.1 : The petitioners claim that, petitioner No.1 is the mother, petitioner No.2 is the father and petitioner No.3 is the brother of the deceased. To prove the SCCH-23 20 MVC. No.3618/2022 same, petitioner No.2 filed affidavit-in-lieu of his chief- examination and deposed about the above relationship. The Aadhar cards marked at Ex's.P.20 to 23 and contents of the police papers do fortify the said fact. This Court will not loose sight of the fact that, the petitioner No.1 & 2 are the parents and petitioner No.3 is the brother of deceased. The evidence discloses that deceased is the eldest son who is a one of the bread winner to the family and as such the petitioners were dependent on deceased. It is pertinent to note that, this relationship of the petitioners with the deceased has not been disputed by the respondent. Since the evidence led by the petitioners is satisfactory and also taking into consideration the fact that there are no rival claimants, this Tribunal hold that the petitioners are the legal representative of the deceased. Further when its comes to the dependency of the petitioner No.3, it is relevant to note that the petitioner No.3 is the brother of the deceased. Petitioner No.3 has attained majority. Added more there is nothing placed on record before the court that the petitoner No.3 was the dependent of the earning of the deceased when such being the case he cannot be considered as a dependent on the deceased. Therefore, petitioners No.1 and 2 are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased. Hence, this Tribunal answers to issue No.1 Partly in the Affirmative.
33. ISSUE NO.3: In this case the petitioners have claimed the compensation of Rs.2 crores on the death of SCCH-23 21 MVC. No.3618/2022 deceased Samala Hemanth Kumar Reddy in the road traffic accident. The petitioners contended that, deceased was working as Associate Consultant in M/s Capgemini - Altran Technologies India Pvt.Ltd., and drawing salary of Rs.62,588/- p.m. In order to substantiate the above said factum the petitioners have produced the Employment offer letter, Salary slips, Bank Statement and Form No.16, as per Ex.P.16 to 19 which reflects that the deceased was working as Associate Consultant in M/s Capgemini - Altran Technologies India Pvt.Ltd., The petitioners have also examined one Mr. Syed Mohammed Aamir as PW.2 who is the Senior Manager HR of M/s Capgemini - Altran Technologies India Pvt.Ltd., through him Bonafide certificate, Employment offer letter, Salary slips and Form No.16 of deceased were marked as per Ex.P.26 to 29. He has cross examined by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 he admitted that prior to appointment we will verify the educational qualifications. Deceased Samala Hemanth Kumar Reddy was an normal recruitment candidate. It is admitted that company issues offer letter and the candidate has to sign the same and return to the office. Further Pw.2 clarifies as it was a covid time there was a relaxation to this proceedure. It is admitted that, from the year 2022 the employees are coming to the office. Previously it was online. The Offer was given in the month of October-2021 and the employee had joined in the month of December-2021.
SCCH-23 22 MVC. No.3618/2022Further the PW.2 categorically admitted that the deceased was a confirmed employee. Further it was deposed that the gross salary of the deceased at the time of joining is Rs.62,588/-. The IT, PT and PF will be deducted. The documents at Ex.P.16 being the offier letter reveals that the company has offered the job to the deceased. The petitioners have examined the employer of the deceased as PW.2. He has produced the bonafide certifiecate of the deceased at Ex.P.26. This document reveasl about the deceased working in the company from 15.12.2021 to 22.06.2022i.e till his death . PW.2 has also produced the Employer offer letter at Ex.P.22 from proper custody which is akin to Ex.P.16. PW.2 furher produced the salary slip at Ex.P.28 for the month of March- 2022 to June-2022 in the May -2022 the salary of the deceased is Rs.62,588/- and the total deducation was Rs.2,993/-, but his gross earning is Rs.62,588/-. The corresponding entries was found in Ex.P.18 bank statement. When such beign the case there is no impediment in considering the salary of the deceased as Rs.62,588/-.
34. The next aspect to be considered to the age of the deceased. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, the petitioners have produced the SSLC marks card and Aadhar card of the deceased as per Ex.P.12 and 23, wherein, the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 15.06.1997 & the accident had taken place on 22.06.2022 and it shows that, at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 25 years.
SCCH-23 23 MVC. No.3618/2022Hence the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is '18'.
35. The salary of the deceased for month of May-2022 as per Ex.P.28 was Rs.62,588/- & the same is taken into consideration as his monthly salary. Be that as it may, annual income works out to Rs.7,51,056/- (62,588 X 12). Out of the said annual income, professional tax & income tax needs to be deducted. The calculation table stands as follows :
Annual Gross Salary 7,51,056
(Rs.62,588 x12)
Annual Professional Tax (less) 2,400
Total 748656
Less Tax Exemption 2,50,000
(for the year 2022)
Taxable Income 4,98,656
Tax payable @ 10% on Rs.4,98,656/- 49865.6
(during the year 2022)
Gross Income 7,51,056
Less Total Tax payable 52,266
(2,400 + 49,866 = 52,266)
Annual Established Income 6,98,790
Monthly Established Income 58,233
(6,98,790 / 12)
36. In the case on hand the deceased was aged 25 years. His income is taken as Rs.58,233/- p.m. In this case SCCH-23 24 MVC. No.3618/2022 the deceased being an permanent employee had a permanent job. Therefore as per dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 50% of income is to be added towards future prospects. 50% of Rs.58,233/- works out to Rs.29,117/-. Therefore the total income comes to Rs.87,350/- p.m (58,233 + 29,117).
37. Further as stated above that, deceased was a bachelor, as per the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 in between Sarla verma V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation, the 50% of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal expenses as the deceased unmarried, thereby the 50% income of the deceased has to be deducted for his personal expenditure. On such deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.43,675/- p.m. (Rs.87,350 X 50/100).
38. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.43,675/- p.m. and the multiplier '18' is applied, then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.94,33,800/- (Rs.43,675/- X 12 X
18). Considering the above facts, this Tribunal deems it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.94,34,000/- under the head of loss of dependency.
39. Further, as Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, the compensation towards loss to estate, funeral expenses and consortium is to be awarded. The petitioners SCCH-23 25 MVC. No.3618/2022 contended that they have spent substantial amount towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies etc., but no documents are produced. Hence this Tribunal award Rs.18,150/- towards loss to estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses as enhanced at the rate of 10% on every 3 years.
40. In this case, petitioners No.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased and as per the decision reported in (2018) 12 SCC 130 between Magma General Insurance Company Limited V/s Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, the petitioner is entitled for filial consortium, as the filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose of their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their oral in the family unit. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the SCCH-23 26 MVC. No.3618/2022 family unit. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 in the case of the New India Assurance Company Ltd V/s Smt.Somwati & others, has held that the claims Tribunal shall award Parental and Filial Consortium in a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head of Filial consortium.
41. The calculation table stands as follows :
Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.94,34,000/-
2. Towards loss to estate Rs. 18,150/-
3. Towards transportation of Rs. 18,150/-
dead body funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses
4. Towards loss of Filial Rs. 80,000/-
consortium to petitioner No.1 & 2Total Rs.95,50,300/-
42. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY: Having regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of interest, this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded it would meet the ends of justice.
43. There is no dispute with regard to the issuance of insurance policy and its validity as on the date of accident. Therefore, the respondent No.1 being the RC owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending lorry SCCH-23 27 MVC. No.3618/2022 bearing Reg.No.KA-52-9381 thereof are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid award amount to the petitioner together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire amount. However the respondent No.2 being a insurer of the offending lorry is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.3 Partly in the Affirmative.
44. ISSUE NO.4 : In view of the discussion made supra, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act 1988, is hereby partly allowed with costs in the following terms :
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.95,50,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay and directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of Two months from the date of award.SCCH-23 28 MVC. No.3618/2022
On deposit of the award amount together with interest, the claimants are entitled for the compensation amount by way of apportionment as follows :
Petitioner No.1 - 80%
Petitioner No.2 - 20%
Petitioner No.3 - Nil -
Out of the share amount of Petitioner No.1 a sum equal to 30% shall be deposited in her name in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of her choice for a period of 3 years and the remaining 70% shall be released to her through E-payment on proper identification and verification. However the said petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on her deposit amount from time to time.
After deposit of compensation amount the office is directed to release the entire share with interest of the petitioner No.2 through NEFT/RTGS by way of E-payment on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.SCCH-23 29 MVC. No.3618/2022
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer & printout taken by him, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of July 2024).
(Aalok. A.N) XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Smt. Samala Bhaskar Reddy @ Bhaskar Reddy PW.2 : Sri. Syed Mohammed Aamir PW.3 : Sri. Shankar Reddy List of documents got marked for the petitioner/s:
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 True copy of Complaint Ex.P.3 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4 True copy of Vehicle Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.5 True copy of Spot Sketch Ex.P.6 True copy of Inquest report Ex.P.7 True copy of PM report Ex.P.8 True copy of IMV Report Ex.P.9 True copy of Notice issued U/S 133 of IMV Act Ex.P.10 True copy of Reply to the above notice Ex.P.11 True copy of Chargesheet Ex.P.12 Notarized copy of SSLC Marks card of the deceased Ex.P.13 Notarized copy of PUC Marks card of the deceased Ex.P.14 Notarized copy of B.Tech Marks card of the deceased Ex.P.15 Notarized copy of Provisional Certificate issued to the deceased SCCH-23 30 MVC. No.3618/2022
Ex.P.16 Employment offer letter issued to the deceased via E-
mail Ex.P.17 Computer generated Salary Slips of the deceased for the months of March, April, May and June 2022 Ex.P.18 Certified copy of Bank account statement of the deceased Ex.P.19 Form No.16 issued to the deceased Ex.P.20 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner No.1 Ex.P.21 Notarized copy of my Aadhar Card Ex.P.22 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner No.3 Ex.P.23 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Ex.P.24 Notarized copy of Death Extract of the deceased Ex.P.25 Authorization Letter Ex.P.26 Bonafide Certificate Ex.P.27 Employment Offer Letter Ex.P.28 Salary slips (4 in Nos.) Ex.P.29 Form No.16 (2 in Nos.) Ex.P.30 Notarized copy of the Aadhaar card of witness List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
RW.1 : Sri. Sayed Jahangeer Pasha RW.2 : Sri. Santhosh. B.L
List of documents got marked for the respondent/s :
Ex.R1 : Notarized copy of the Insurance policy (Aalok. A.N) XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.