Bangalore District Court
Dillip Behera vs B.M.T.C on 14 March, 2025
KABC0B0007662024
IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES & MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21)
PRESENT: Vijaykumar S. Hiremath.,
LL.B.,
XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small
Causes & Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
Dated this the 14th Day of March 2025
M.V.C. No.2488/2024
Petitioner/s: 1. Dillip Behera,
S/o Bhagabat Behera,
Aged about 71 years,
2. Jayanti Behera,
W/o Dillip Behera,
Aged about 61 years,
3. Deepanshu Behera,
S/o Dillip Behera,
Aged about 33 years.
All are R/at :-
House No.120, Machua Bazaar,
Buxibazar, Cuttack Sadar, Cuttack
G.P, Odisha-753001.
(By Sri. M.Subramani, Adv.,)
Vs.
Respondent/s: 1. The manager,
BMTC, Division,
K.H.Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore-560027,
(Owner of the BMTC Bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-57-F-3867)
(By Sri. Afzal Ahamed, Adv.,)
SCCH-21 2 MVC No.2488/2024
Date of institution of the : 03.04.2024
petition
Nature of the Petition : U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act
Date of commencement of : 04.09.2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 14.03.2025
was pronounced
Duration of the Petition Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 11 11
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,00,000/- from the respondents with regard to the death of Debasis Behera S/o Dillip Behera in the road traffic accident that took place on 29.02.2024.
2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:
It is the case of the petitioners that, on 29.02.2024 at about 12.50 p.m., the deceased was riding Honda Grazia bearing Reg. No. KA-01-JB-1551 towards Life Style, slowly and cautiously observing all the traffic rules and regulations by wearing head-guard, at that time one BMTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-57-F-3867 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life at high speed from Hosmat Junction towards Life style direction dashed against the deceased vehicle from behind. Due to forced SCCH-21 3 MVC No.2488/2024 impact, deceased fell down and right side rear wheel ran over his body due to this he sustained severe injuries and other injuries all over the body.
Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Hosmat hospital, wherein the duty doctors treated and declared he was died on the way to hospital due to accidental injuries. Thereafter, the body was taken to Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital for postmortem. After postmortem was conducted the petitioners have shifted the dead body to their native place by using Airways and on road and performed the last rites and obsequies ceremony and they have spent more than Rs.5,50,000/- towards funeral expenses and medical expenses. On account of the sudden and sad demise of the deceased in the said accident, the petitioners have undergoing deep mental shock, pain and suffering and hardship.
Prior to the accident the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 28 years and he was working as a Senior Associate at Acuity Knowledge Centre (India) Private Limited, Bangalore and he was earning Rs.76,950/- per month. The deceased worked very hard and had an opportunity to be transferred to abroad also in future. The petitioner No.1 is the father of the deceased, petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased and petitioner No.3 is the brother of the deceased. So the petitioners have lost their beloved son and brother. The petitioners were solely depending upon the SCCH-21 4 MVC No.2488/2024 income of the deceased. The respondent being the owner cum internal insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay Rs.2,50,00,000/- with cost and interest to the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
3. After service of notice, the respondent has appeared through his counsel and filed the written statement by denying the contents of the claim petition and denied the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. This respondent further submits that, on 29.02.2024 while the offending bus was proceeding on the schedule route from Jyothipura to K.R.Market, the same was driven by it driver Appaji.A.Pawar, slowly and cautiously observing all the traffic rules and regulations, at about 12.40 p.m., while the said bus was reached near Hosmat Hospital junction, as there was red signal, the driver of the said bus had stopped his bus along with other vehicles at the junction and was waiting for the green signal to proceed on the said journey. After getting green signal driver of the said bus moved slowly, at that time deceased who had also stopped his motorcycle behind the bus suddenly moved his scooter in high speed and tried to pass through the right side of bus and the other vehicles, as there was no much space to pass through he dashed against a car which was proceeding in front of him. As a result of which he lost his balance and fell along his scooter and came in contact with the right side back portion of the SCCH-21 5 MVC No.2488/2024 bus and suffer injuries. This accident and injuries which has occurred to the deceased is only due to his own negligent act. Further, this respondent also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. By these reasons, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues:
1) Whether the petitioners prove that on 29.02.2024 at about 12.50 p.m., accident took place near Hosmat Junction, R. M. Road, Bangalore due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No. KA-57-F-3867 as a result deceased has succumbed to the accidental injuries?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much?
3. What order or award?
5. In order order to prove the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No.3 got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 19 and also examined Jarin Sourav P. working at Acuity Knowledge Partners, as PW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.20 to 27 and closed their side. On the other hand, respondent examined the driver of the offending bus as RW.1.
SCCH-21 6 MVC No.2488/2024
6. Heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the material placed on record.
7. My findings on the above issues as under:-
Issue No.1 ... In the affirmative,
Issue No.2 ... Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.3 ... As per final order,
for the following:
:REASONS:
8. ISSUE No.1: The petitioners contended that on 29.02.2024 at about 12.40 p.m. deceased Debasis Behera met with road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-57-F-3867.
9. The petitioner No.1 and 2 are the father and mother and petitioner No.3 is the brother of the deceased. The petitioner No.3 in order to establish their case filed the affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW-1 and reiterated the petition averments and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 19. Ex.P.1 is the FIR , Ex.P.2 is the complaint, Ex.P.3 is the Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.4 is the Sketch, Ex.P.5 is the Inquest Report, Ex.P.6 is the police intimation, Ex.P.7 is the Charge sheet, Ex.P.8 to 11 are the copy of Aadhaar cards of petitioners and deceased, Ex.P.12 is the Notarized copy of DL of the deceased, Ex.P.13 & 14 are the Provisional Certificate issued by Ravenshaw University, Cuttack, Odisha, Ex.P.15 is the SCCH-21 7 MVC No.2488/2024 Appointment letter issued by Acuity Company, Ex.P.16 is the Salary verification letter, Ex.P.17 is the 13 payslips, Ex.P.18 is the post mortem examination report, Ex.P.19 is the IMV report. The burden is upon the petitioners to prove that, the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus bearing Reg. No. KA-57-F-3867.
10. As per the case of the petitioners, it could be seen that on 29.02.2024 at about 12.50 p.m., the deceased was riding Honda Grazia bearing Reg. No. KA-01-JB-1551 towards Life Style, slowly and cautiously observing all the traffic rules and regulations by wearing headguard, at that time one BMTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA- 57-F-3867 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life at high speed from Hosmat Junction towards Life style direction dashed against the deceased vehicle from behind. Due to forced impact, deceased fell down and right side rear wheel ran over his body due to this he sustained severe injuries and other injuries all over the body and succumbed to accidental injuries on the same day. Accordingly, the Halasur Traffic Police have registered a case in Cr.No.24/2024. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against the driver of offending vehicle/accused No.1 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304(a) of IPC and filed charge sheet against the petitioner No.3/accused No.2 for the offences punishable U/Secs.146 R/w. Sec.196 of I.M.V Act. SCCH-21 8 MVC No.2488/2024
11. The certified copy of the First Information (First information statement/s complaint in common para-lace) lodged before the Halasuru Traffic Police has been marked as Ex-P2. On receiving the First Information, the Station House Officer chose to register a case in Crime No. 24/2024. The said certified copy of First Information Report (F.I.R.) is marked as Ex.P.1.
12. Ex.P.1 to 7, 12 & 18 are the only documents, which are to be scrutinized to arrive at conclusion- whether the accident was owing to the negligent manner of driving by the BMTC bus driver. The Ex.P.3 (spot panchanama) and Ex.P.4(sketch) clearly discloses the place of accident and that the police, after registering the First Information, held investigation and filed the Ex.P.7, Charge-Sheet against the driver of the BMTC bus for the offences punishable U/Secs. 279 and 304-A of IPC. The Ex.P.19 i.e., certified copy of the I.M.V Report discloses that, the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle in question.
13. In order to rebut the claim of the petitioners, respondent examined the driver of the said BMTC Bus as RW.1 and deposed that, the accident and injuries which has occurred to the deceased is only due to his own rash and negligent act and respondent is not responsible for the cause of accident. On the other hand the petitioners have produced the sufficient documentary and oral evidences to prove that accident SCCH-21 9 MVC No.2488/2024 was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg.No. KA-01-JB-1551 and resulted in death of deceased Debasis Behera. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, I answer the Issue No.1 in affirmative.
14. ISSUE No.2: This Issue is regarding dependency, quantum of compensation to be awarded to petitioners and who is liable to pay the same, which is answered under the following heads:
15. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: To ascertain the actual loss of dependency, the age, income of deceased and the number of dependents of the deceased are to be taken into consideration. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are solely depending upon the income of the deceased and due to death of Debasis Behera S/o Dillip Behera, they have lost love and affection of the deceased.
16. The petitioner No.1 and 2 are parents of the deceased and petitioner No.3 is the brother of the deceased Debasis Behera. The deceased out of his income contributed to the income of family consisting of himself and petitioners herein. Though the petitioners have contended that, petitioner No.3 is also dependent on the income of the deceased Debasis Behera. But they have not furnished any positive evidence to show that, he is dependent on SCCH-21 10 MVC No.2488/2024 the income of his deceased brother. Further, he depose that, he is drawing salary of Rs.1,02,000/-. Moreover, the age of the petitioner No.3 is 33 years. Hence, this court opine that, petitioner No.3 is not dependent on the income of deceased. Hence, 1/2 of the income should be taken towards personal expenses of the deceased.
17. Considering recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Special leave petitioner (Civil No.25590/2014 dated:31.10.2016 (National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others), in which it is observed that, "in case if the 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 of 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".
18. In a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & Others), Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, there can not be distinction where there is evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork, as such addition on account of future prospects is admissible where in the absence of proof of income. SCCH-21 11 MVC No.2488/2024
19. The petitioners contended that, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 28 years and working as Senior Associate at Acuity Knowledge Centre (India) Private Limited, Bangalore and he was earning Rs.76,950/- per month. The petitioners have produced the postmortem report of deceased which is marked at Ex.P.18. From perusal of the Ex.P.18 age of the deceased is mentioned as 28 Years as on the date of accident. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as 28 years as on the date of accident. The accident took place in the year 2024. The petitioners contended that, deceased was working as Senior Associate at Acuity Knowledge Centre (India) Private Limited, Bangalore and he was earning Rs.76,950/- per month and in order to prove the same, petitioners examined the Lead Executive, H.R. Department at Acuity Knowledge Partners as PW.2, who depose that, deceased was working in his company as Senior Associate and was drawing salary of Rs.76,950/- in the month of January-2024 and produced documents as per Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.27. On perusal of these documents, it reveals that, in the salary of the deceased Rs.200/- is to be deducted towards professional tax and Rs.4,128/- is to be deducted towards income tax. Hence, after deducting these two taxes the net salary of deceased was Rs.72,622/- per month.
20. As per decision stated above, it is clear that, the Tribunal has to consider the future prospects on actual salary less tax and SCCH-21 12 MVC No.2488/2024 even for self employed or were engaged on fixed wages. Admittedly, the age of the deceased is 28 years. So 40% of future prospects is taken into consideration. Taking into consideration of the same, if 40% is added to the income of the deceased it would be Rs.72,622/- + 40% of Rs.72,622/- is Rs.29,048/- = Rs.1,01,670/- per month. Since the deceased is bachelor 1/2 has to be deducted towards personal expenses. So, 1/2 of Rs.1,01,670/- would be Rs.50,835/-. Income for consideration (Rs.1,01,670 - 50,835) is Rs.50,835/- per month. Therefore the annual income (Rs.50,835 x 12) is Rs.6,10,020/-. As such correct multiplier as per guidelines of Sarala Varma case would be "17". Thus the loss of dependency works out to (Rs.6,10,020/- x 17) is Rs.1,03,70,340/-.
21. TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY, FUNERAL EXPENSES AND LOSS OF ESTATE: The petitioners have spent the amount towards shifting the dead body and performing funeral and obsequies ceremony. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment passed in Special Leave petitioner (Civil) No.25590/2014 dated:31-10-2017 (National Insurance Co., Ltd Vs. Pranaya Sethi and Others), wherein it is held that as far as conventional heads are concerned, the petitioners are entitled for funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- and under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-. SCCH-21 13 MVC No.2488/2024
22. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM: The petitioner No.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased, so they are entitled for consortium for loss of "protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training". Therefore, Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to the petitioner No.1 and 2 under the head of loss of consortium.
23. ESCALATION OF 10% ON AMOUNT AWARDED UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court at para No.59.8 of Judgment passed in Pranaya Sethi and others has directed to enhance the amount to be awarded under conventional heads to an extent of 10% on every 03 years. Further more, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a decision delivered on 07.07.2021 in MFA No.101723/2017 clubbed with MFA No.104014/2016 between Smt. Viday @ Vidyashree W/o Bandu @ Dattu Koli and others Vs. Sanju S/o Veerappa Koli and another at paragraph No.16 has awarded 10% of enhanced amount on total amount awarded under conventional heads. The Judgment in Pranya Sethi (referred supra) delivered on 31.10.2017, as such 06 years have lapsed. Thus the petitioners are entitled for 20% enhanced amount under the above conventional heads. While discussing above, this tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- under conventional heads and 20% of the same comes to Rs.22,000/-. Thus, petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.22,000/- under this head.SCCH-21 14 MVC No.2488/2024
Considering the above facts and for the above reasons, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the following heads:
1 Loss of dependency Rs.1,03,70,340/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs.80,000/- 3 Towards transportation of dead Rs. 15,000/- body and funeral expenses 4 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 5 Escalation of 20% on Rs. 22,000/-
conventional heads Total Rs.1,05,02,340/-
Hence, this Tribunal feels to award just and proper compensation of Rs.1,05,02,340/- to the petitioners.
24. LIABILITY: In this case, learned counsel for respondent argued that, petitioners have received Rs.14,17,500/- from HDFC Life insurance company. As such, petitioners are not entitled for compensation in the present case. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner argued that, the said amount received by the petitioners is not liable to be deducted from the compensation to be awarded by this Tribunal. In support of her argument she relied upon the Judgment reported in 2021 ACJ 2248 between New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Veena Sinha and others, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that, amount paid to the parents of the deceased under other insurance cannot be deducted from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants on the death of the deceased. The said Judgment is squarely SCCH-21 15 MVC No.2488/2024 applicable to the present case in hand. Hence, petitioners are entitled for compensation in addition to compensation already received by them from the HDFC Life Insurance Company.
As discussed in issue No.1, the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the BMTC bus bearing Reg. No. KA-57-F-3867 and the police have conducted due enquiry and filed charge sheet against the said driver of the BMTC bus bearing Reg. No. KA-57-F-386. However, the respondent being the owner cum internal insurer of the offending BMTC bus is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
25. INTEREST: As far as awarding of interest on the compensation amount is concerned, I have relied In a decision in M.F.A. No.100090 of 2014 in between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others V/s The divisional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & Others), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has awarded interest at the rate of 6%. Accordingly, ISSUE No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.
26. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioners under Sec.166 of I. M. V Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.SCCH-21 16 MVC No.2488/2024
The petitioners are awarded with compensation of Rs.1,05,02,340/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent being owner cum internal insurer of the vehicle involved in an accident is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. The respondent is directed to deposit the above compensation amount with interest thereon before Tribunal within two months from the date of this award.
After deposit of compensation amount, the share of petitioner No.1 and 2 is apportioned in the ratio of 50:50 respectively.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1 and 2 50% shall be deposited as FD in their names in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period of three years and remaining 50% balance amount with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1 and 2 on proper identification.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest thereon, disburse amount as mentioned above as per guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No. 2/2019 dated 19.8.2019.
The petitioners are hereby directed to produce particulars of their Bank Account, with name of Bank, IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank Pass Book which contains compulsorily photograph of petitioners, which is duly attested by concerned Bank. Further petitioners shall produce PAN Card/Aadhaar Card.SCCH-21 17 MVC No.2488/2024
In case of deposit of awarded amount with interest, the petitioners are entitled to receive amount as mentioned above after expiry of period provided for filing an appeal.
Bank shall not advance loan on such FD, and shall not cause premature release of FD without permission by the Tribunal.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court on this the 14th day of March, 2025) (VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH) XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Deepanshu Behera P.W.2 : Jarin Sourav P.
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 FIR
Ex.P.2 Complaint
Ex.P.3 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4 Sketch
Ex.P.5 Inquest Report
Ex.P.6 MLC
Ex.P.7 Charge sheet
Ex.P.8 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased
Ex.P.9 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.1
SCCH-21 18 MVC No.2488/2024
Ex.P.10 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.2
Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.3
Ex.P.12 Notarized copy of DL of deceased
Ex.P.13 & 14 Provisional Certificates issued by Ravenshaw University Ex.P.15 Appointment letter Ex.P.16 Salary verification letter Ex.P.17 Payslips (13 in Nos.) Ex.P.18 Postmortem report Ex.P.19 MVA report Ex.P.20 I.D card of PW.2 Ex.P.21 Appointment letter Ex.P.22 Pay promotion letter Ex.P.23 Payslips (14 in Nos.) Ex.P.24 Statement of full and final settlement Ex.P.25 Confirmation letter after completed probationary period Ex.P.26 & 27 Statement of death claim letter issued to the parents of the deceased Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents:
RW.1 : Appaji Pawar Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
-NIL-
(VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH) XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.