Bangalore District Court
Vasantha .M vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 24 August, 2015
BEFORE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
(SCCH-11)
DATED THIS 24th DAY OF AUGUST, 2015
PRESENT: SRI. GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI, B.A,LL.B(SPL).
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM
M.V.C NO.2229/2014
PETITIONERS: 1. Vasantha .M,
W/o. Late. Manjunatha Y.C
Aged about 45 years.
2. Channakeshava .M
S/o. Late. Manjunatha Y.C,
Aged about 24 Years.
3. Ranjitha .M
D/o Late. Manjunatha Y.C
Aged about 21 Years.
All are residing at
No.106, Vokkaligara Road,
Opp. to Floor Mill,
Yalahanka,
Bangalore-560 064.
(By pleader - Sri. B.K. Vasudevamurthy)
- V/S -
RESPONDENTS: 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional office, 5th Floor,
Krishi Bhavan, Hudson Circle,
Bangalore.
(By pleader - Sri. Girish Kodgi)
SCCH - 11 2 MVC No.2229/2014
2. Mr. Poliah .N,
S/o Alluraiah,
No.26, Doddakrishnappa Layout,
Near Sunrise School,
Bangalore-560 094.
Also at
No.154, 2nd Main,
Doddakrishnappa layout,
Bangalore-560 094.
(By pleader - Sri. Rajesh .A.)
*********
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation for the death of deceased Manjunath Y.C. son of Chinnaiah due to the injuries sustained in Motor Vehicle accident.
2) It is averred in the petition that, on 23.02.2014 at about 9.00 p.m., when the deceased Manjunath Y.C. was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-EG-6609 and he was going on the B.B. road, near IAF gate, infront of Ganesha temple at the extreme left side of the road, carefully and cautiously observing all traffic rules and regulations, at that time, rider of Motor cycle bearing SCCH - 11 3 MVC No.2229/2014 No.KA-04-HF-6613 has ridden the same in rash and negligent manner, endangering human life with high speed and came from opposite side in one way and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased. Due to the said impact, deceased Manjunath fell down and sustained several head and bodily injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Deeksha hospital for treatment wherein first aid treatment was provided to him and later on, he was shifted to Baptist hospital and then, he was shifted to Columbia Asia hospital for higher treatment wherein he succumbed to the injuries in the said hospital. The petitioners have spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical and other allowances and Rs.50,000/- for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident and he being a skilled employee grade II in Federal Mogul and was earning salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. Deceased was the sole earner of the family and due to the death of the deceased, petitioners have lost their beloved family member and earning member of the family and their life has become sorrowful and gloomy. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of the offending vehicle. The jurisdictional police have registered the case SCCH - 11 4 MVC No.2229/2014 against the rider of said vehicle for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC. The respondents being owner and insurer of offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence petitioners have claimed compenstion of Rs.60,00,000/- along with interest and costs.
3) The respondent No.1 filed written statement and denied the contents of the claim petition. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is exaggerated and primarily intended to make unlawful gain and the claim is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it has no proportion whatsoever to the nature of earning and compensation claimed is imaginary, speculative and highly exorbitant. It is contended that, the vehicle bearing No.KA-04-HF- 6613 was duly insured with the package policy bearing No.070381/31/01/00007280 in the name of Mr. Polaiah.N and same was valid and effective from 23.11.2013 to 22.11.2014. But the insured had not furnished the details and particulars of driver of the vehicle who was driving the vehicle and cause of the accident and without said particulars, respondent No.1 finds it difficult to SCCH - 11 5 MVC No.2229/2014 submit effective statement of objections. The respondent No.1 may be permitted to file elaborate statement of objections on receipt of the material particulars and information referred above. The liability of the respondent No.1 is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and subject to the valid and effective driving licence. In the event, this Hon'ble Court comes to conclusion to award the compensation; the rate of interest shall not exceed 6% in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court. The respondent No.1 may be permitted to contest the claim petition with regard to actionable negligence and quantum of compensation, if the respondent No.2 fails to contest the claim petition under Section 170 of Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore it is prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4) The respondent No.2 filed written statement and denied the contents of the claim petition. It is contended that, the respondent No.2 has been acquitted in the criminal case registered on the basis of Cri.No.32/2014 by the JMFC Court. The respondent No.2 admitted the ownership of the vehicle and insurance of the vehicle has stated in para No.15 and 16 of the SCCH - 11 6 MVC No.2229/2014 claim petition. The petitioners have filed false complaint before the police about the accident. The respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-04-HF-6613 and said vehicle was ridden by the rider who was having valid and effective driving licence to ride the said vehicle as on the date of accident and said vehicle was in fit condition and it was duly certified and approved by the department of RTO. The risk of the vehicle was covered by the insurance company and there is no default in payment of the premium to the insurance company. Without prejudice to the contentions taken above, this Court comes to conclusion that, the petitioners are entitled for compensation from the respondent No.2, he is not liable to pay any compensation and there is absolute insurance coverage for such risk from the first respondent vide its policy No.070381/31/01/00007280 valid from 23.11.2013 to 22.11.2014, which was in effect as on the date of accident. Therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5) The petitioner No1 herself examined as PW.1 and also examined one witness as PW2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.20 and closed the evidence.
SCCH - 11 7 MVC No.2229/2014
6) The respondent No.1 and 2 have not led their evidence. Hence respondents' side evidence is closed.
7) Heard the argument of learned counsels for both parties and perused the materials on record.
8) On the basis of the pleadings, following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioners prove that, on 23.02.2014 at about 9.00 p.m., deceased Manjunath Y.C. riding Motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-EG-6609 was going on the B.B. road, near IAF gate, infront of Ganesha Temple on the extreme left side of the road by observing traffic rules and regulations, at that time, the rider of Motor cycle bearing No.KA-
04-HF-6613 riden the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner endangering human life with high speed and dashed to the motor cycle of deceased by which he sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3) What Order or award?
SCCH - 11 8 MVC No.2229/2014
9) My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative;
Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative; the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.37,99,078/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation, from respondent No.1.
Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10) ISSUE No.1: PW.1 has stated in his evidence that, on
23.2.2014 at about 9.00 pm., she and her deceased husband Y.C.Manjunath were going on motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-04- EG-6609 on Service road of BB road which was ridden by her husband and when they came near IAF gate, infront of Ganesha temple at the extreme side of the road, carefully and cautiously, observing all the traffic rules and regulations, at that time, the rider of the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-04-HF-6613 driven the same in rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life and dashed to the motor cycle of her husband. She has stated that, the accident taken place due to rash and negligent act by the rider of the offending vehicle and her husband fell down and SCCH - 11 9 MVC No.2229/2014 sustained multiple injuries and he died in the Columbia Asia Hospital while taking treatment. In the cross-examination of PW.1, she has stated that, duty hour of her deceased husband was 6 am to 2 pm., in the first shift and 2 pm to 10 pm, in the second shift and accident taken place on Sunday and on that day, it was holiday and the distance between her house and place of accident is at 8 k.m. She has stated that, on the date of accident, they had gone to the marriage and after attending the marriage, they were returning to their home and her husband was riding the motor cycle and she was proceeding on the said motor cycle as pillion rider. She has stated that, her deceased husband worn helmet. She has admitted that, they were going on the service road on that day. In the service road, vehicles will move from both directions and she does not know the distance from which she observed the vehicle coming from opposite direction and she has not observed the vehicle number and nature of the vehicle and the opposite vehicle was Yamaha motor cycle on which rider alone was proceeding. She has stated that, public told that, the accident caused by Yamaha motor cycle. She has stated that, she came to know about name of the rider of the motor cycle in the Hospital SCCH - 11 10 MVC No.2229/2014 when he was giving statement to the hospital authorities. The petitioners have produced true copy of F.I.R and complaint which are marked at Ex.P.1 and 2 and as per the said documents, on 23.2.2014 at about 9 pm., when deceased and complainant petitioner were proceeding on motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-04- EG-6609 after attending marriage function at Kadiganahalli and when they came at Ganesha Temple, Yelahanka and proceeding on the Bangalore - Bellary main road, Service road, at that time, the rider of the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-04-HF-6613 ridden the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner No.1 has also produced true copy of charge sheet which is marked at Ex.P.3 and as per the said document, the police have filed charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under section 279, 304(A) of IPC for rash and negligent riding and causing the death of deceased Y.C.Manjunath. The petitioners have produced true copy of hand sketch map, panchanama which are marked at Ex.P.4 and 5 and as per said documents, petitioner No.1 and her deceased husband were proceeding on motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-04-EG-6609 from SCCH - 11 11 MVC No.2229/2014 North South direction and the rider of the offending vehicle came from opposite direction and dashed to the motor cycle of deceased. On perusal of the charge sheet and enclosures, they reveal that, the accident taken place due to rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle. On perusal of the IMV report, due to head on collusion, front side portion were damaged to both vehicles. Oral evidence is supported by the documentary evidence and even though, she does not know the vehicle number and nature of the vehicle, she came to know from the public and the rider of the offending vehicle also came to the Hospital for taking treatment where he disclosed his name to the hospital authorities. Hence, the contention that, offending vehicle has been falsely implicated is not acceptable. The petitioners have been proved the rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle. So, I answer issue No.1 in Affirmative.
11) ISSUE NO.2: PW1 has stated in her evidence that, immediately after the accident, her husband was taken to the Baptist Hospital and she has spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards treatment, transportation and other expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral SCCH - 11 12 MVC No.2229/2014 expenses. She has stated that, immediately after the accident, her husband was shifted to Deeksha Hospital and later on, he was shifted to Baptist Hospital and from there, he was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital where he died after 4 days of accident. The petitioners have produced medical bills of Columbia Asia Hospital. As per the said document, petitioners have spent Rs.23,514/- for having provided treatment to the deceased in the Columbia Asia Hospital, Bangalore Baptist Hospital, M.S.Ramaiah Hospital. But PW.1 herself has admitted in her cross-examination that, medical bills of Columbia Asia Hospital were paid by Federal Mogal Goetze (India) Ltd., and they have paid some of the medical bills of Bangalore Baptist Hospital. But the medical bills which have been paid by the said company are not produced by the petitioners. The petitioners have produced only medical bills which have been paid by them. Considering this fact, I hold that, petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,514/- under the head of medical expenses during the period of treatment. Hence, the petitioners are awarded for compensation of Rs.23,514/- under the head of medical expenses during the period of treatment.
SCCH - 11 13 MVC No.2229/2014
12) PW.1 has stated in her evidence that, they have spent
Rs.50,000/- for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Considering the costs of transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of transportation of dead body and funeral expenses in view of principle laid down in the decision reported in (Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others), 2013 ACJ 1403.
13) PW.1 has stated in her evidence that, her deceased husband was working in Federal Mogul Goetze (I) Ltd., and earning salary of Rs.40,000/- per month and he was contributing his entire earning to the family who were depending on his income. Due to the untimely death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, petitioners would have suffered financial loss. Considering this fact, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. Hence the petitioners are awarded the compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection.
SCCH - 11 14 MVC No.2229/2014
14) Due to sudden and untimely death of the deceased in the family, the petitioners have lost their earning member and they have been put to economical loss and their life has become miserable and they have lost income towards estate. Since the deceased was only earning member in the family of petitioners, they have lost income towards estate. Considering this fact, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of estate. Hence the petitioners are awarded the compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of estate.
15) Petitioner No.1 has lost her husband at her young age and she has lost companionship, love, affection, care and protection etc as being wife of the deceased. It is the right of the petitioner No.1 to the company, society, solace, affection, and sexual relations with her deceased husband and it is just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of consortium and compensate the loss of spouse's action, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations in future days as held in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (Rajesh V/s Rajbir Singh) SCCH - 11 15 MVC No.2229/2014 2013 ACJ 1403. Hence the petitioner no1 is awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of consortium.
16) PW-1 has stated in her evidence that, her deceased husband was working as a skilled II employer at Federal Mogul Goetze (INDIA) Limited at Yelahanka and earning salary of Rs.40,000/- per month and they were depending upon his income. In the cross-examination of PW.1, she has denied that, her deceased husband was not working in Federal Mogul Goetze (INDIA) Limited and she has created Ex.P.9 to 13. In the further cross-examination, nothing has been elicited. PW.2 has stated in his evidence that, deceased was working as skilled II employer at Federal Mogul Goetze (INDIA) Limited at Yelahanka and in the month of February 2014, he had got salary of Rs.28,953.91ps. and Ex.P.12 has been issued by his company. He has stated that, no service has been given to the family members of deceased on compensatory grounds and there are no accidental benefits in his company in case of death in the road traffic accident. The petitioners have produced pay slip for the month of December SCCH - 11 16 MVC No.2229/2014 2013 pertaining to deceased and as per the said document, the deceased was getting gross salary of Rs.28,290.49 and net salary of Rs.20,514/-. The petitioners have also produced the pay slip for the month of January 2014 and as per the said document, the deceased was getting gross salary of Rs.40,619.60 and net salary of Rs.32,194/-. The petitioners have also produced pay slip for the month of February 2014 and as per the said document, the deceased was getting gross salary of Rs.28,953.91 and net salary of Rs.18,944/-. The petitioners have produced income tax returns of the deceased which are marked at Ex.P.12 to 14. The petitioners have also produced true copy of Bank statement of deceased towards credit of salary to his account. On perusal of the said documents, the salary of Rs.32,194/- has been credited to the account of the deceased for the month of January 2014. As on the date of accident, the deceased was getting Rs.28,953.91 and net salary of Rs.18,944/- as per Ex.P.11. The date of birth of deceased is shown as 1.5.1960 in the pay slip. As per the decision reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 (Sarla Verma's case), the multiplier applicable to the facts of the case is 11. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir SCCH - 11 17 MVC No.2229/2014 Singh and others), 2013 ACJ 1403, there shall be addition of 15% towards future prospectus to the persons aged between 50 to 60 years. As per decision reported in (Yerramma & Ors. Vs.G.Krishnamurthy & anr.) A.I.R 2015 SUPREME COURT 1145, if gross salary of deceased is taken at Rs.28,953/-, after deduction of income tax and professional tax, the gross salary of deceased will at Rs.27,277/-. Then the loss of income is calculated as under:
Rs.27,277/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.36,00,564/-
Hence the petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.36,00,564/- under the head of loss of dependency.
17) The calculation table stands as follows:-
1) Medical expenses during the Rs. 23,514/-
period of treatment
2) Loss of dependency Rs. 36,00,564/-
3) Transportation of dead body Rs. 25,000/-
and funeral expenses
4) Loss of love and affection Rs. 30,000/-
SCCH - 11 18 MVC No.2229/2014
5) Loss of estate Rs. 20,000/-
6) Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Rs. 37,99,078/-
Therefore, in total, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.37,99,078/- with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation.
18) Respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is owner of the offending vehicle. Thus, respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence, I am of the view that, the petitioners are entitled for awarded compensation of Rs.37,99,078/- with simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation from respondent No1. Accordingly, I answer this issue No.2 in the partly affirmative.
19) ISSUE No.3: In view of answers to issues No.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
SCCH - 11 19 MVC No.2229/2014
ORDER
The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.37,99,078/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realization.
The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with accrued interest, within one month, from the date of this award.
Out of the awarded compensation amount, Rs.17,99,078/- is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1 including compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the head of consortium and Rs.10,00,000/- each is apportioned to the share of petitioners No.2 and 3.
In case of deposit of the awarded compensation amount by respondent No.1, Rs.10,00,000/- shall be deposited in FD in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a period of 5 years, out of the share of petitioner No.1 and remaining amount of Rs.7,99,078/- shall be released along with accrued interest on awarded amount by way of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification. Entire share of Rs.10,00,000/- of petitioner No.2 and 3 each shall be deposited in FD for a period of 5 years in any nationalised or scheduled bank of their choice of petitioner No.2 and 3 and petitioner No.1 to 3 are at liberty to withdraw the accrued interest periodically on their deposited FD amount.
SCCH - 11 20 MVC No.2229/2014
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in Open court on this 24th day of August 2015.) (GANAPATHI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONERS:
PW.1 - Vasantha.M
PW.2 - Mahesh Kumar
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.P.1 - True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 - True copy of complaint
Ex.P.3 - True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P.4 - True copy of hand sketch map
Ex.P.5 - True copy of panchaname
Ex.P.6 - True copy of inquest panchanama
Ex.P.7 - True copy of PM reprot
Ex.P.8 - True copy of IMV report
Ex.P.9-11 - 3 pay slips
Ex.P.12&13 - Two Form - 16
Ex.P.14 - Bank Statement Extract
Ex.P.15 - Notarised copy of election identity card
SCCH - 11 21 MVC No.2229/2014
Ex.P.16 - Notarised copy of election identity card
Ex.P.17 - Notarised copy of driving licence of smart card
Ex.P.18 - 6 medical bills
Ex.P.19&20 - 2 advance paid receipts
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS :
- NIL -
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS :
- NIL -
I ADDL.SCJ. & MACT.