Bangalore District Court
In : Kumari. Kavya N vs The United India Insurance Co on 4 January, 2020
BEFORE THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH5) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
PRESENT: SMT. SHARMILA S. B.Com, LLB.,
VIII ADDL. JUDGE & ACMM
MEMBER MACT
BENGALURU.
M.V.C No.1137/2017
c/w
M.V.C No.1136/2017
PETITIONER IN : Kumari. Kavya N.
MVC NO. D/o. Venugopal
1136/2017 Aged about 18 years
Residing at No.3751,
11th Cross, 13th B Main,
HAL 2nd Stage,
Indiranagara,
Bengaluru - 560 008.
(By Smt. Laxmamma H.P. Adv.,)
PETITIONERS IN : 1. Smt. Jayalakshmi
MVC NO. W/o. Venugopal K.
1137/2017 Aged about 49 years
2. Sri. Venugopal K.
S/o. D. Kannan
Aged about 49 years
Both are residing at No.8,
Adi Moolam Nilayam,
2
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
Rajashri Layout, Marathhalli,
Bengaluru - 560 037.
(By Smt. Laxmamma H.P. Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENTS : 1. The United India Insurance Co.
IN MVC No. Ltd.,
1136/2017 & (Divisional Office No.13),
1137/2017 No.40/3, Geetha Mansion,
K.G.Road,
Opp. to State Bank of Mysore,
Bengaluru - 560 009.
(Insurer of the Volkswagon & Polo
Car bearing Reg. No.
KA02MJ6636
Vide Insurance Policy No.
0722013116P104647311
Valid from 10.07.2016 to
09.07.2017
Rep. by its Manager)
(By Smt. T.N.Malathi, Adv.,)
2. Sri. Vinay Rubdi
S/o. Mahesh Rubdi
No.125, 4th Cross, 1st N Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 010.
(R.C.Owner of the Volkswagon &
Polo Car bearing Reg. No.
KA02MJ6635)
(Exparte)
****
3
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
::COMMON JUDGMENT::
This petition MVC No.1136/2017 is filed by the
Petitioner under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989,
claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/ for the injuries
sustained in the alleged accident.
2(a) The petition MVC No.1137/2017 is filed
Petitioners under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989
seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/
for the death of Sangeetha, D/o. K. Venugopal, in road
traffic accident.
3. The brief facts of the case of the Petitioners in
both the cases are as follows:
3(a) It is contended by the Petitioner in MVC
No.1136/2017 that, on 10.11.2016 at about 2.15 p.m.
the Petitioner was travelling with her friend Sangeetha in
the Volkawagon and Polo Car bearing Reg. No.KA02MJ
4
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
6635 on BengaluruKolar NH75 Road, near Ellay
Mallappa Shetty Kere, Bengaluru, the driver of the said
Car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the divider of the road, due to the impact,
Petitioner sustained severe injuries all over the body.
Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner was shifted
to nearby hospital and for further treatment shifted to
Manipal Hospital, for which, she had spent a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/ for medical expenses.
3(b) It is the case of the Petitioner that, she was
studying 1st year B.E., Electrical and Electronics
Engineering in Cambridge Institute of Technology. Due to
the accidental injuries, she was not attended the 1 st
Semester exam and she could not able to attend the
college for further 2 to 3 years. She is also undergoing
unbearable pain, undergoing untold hardship and
5
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
discomfort. Hence she has claimed compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/ against Respondents.
3(c) Petitioners in MVC No.1137/2017 have
contended that, deceased Sangeetha was also sustained
grievous injuries in the above said alleged accident.
Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner's daughter
was shifted to nearby hospital for first aid and for further
treatment taken to Manipal Hopsitals Ltd., Bengaluru,
wherein admitted as an inpatient and during the course
of treatment Petitioner's daughter was died.
3(d) It is the case of the Petitioners that, deceased
was just 19 years and was studying 1 st year B.E.,
Electrical and Electronics Engineering in Cambridge
Institute of Technology. Due to the untimely death of the
deceased, their parents have lost young, educated, love
6
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
and affectionate daughter. Hence they have claimed
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/ against Respondents.
4. After due service of notice, Respondent No.1.
appeared through counsel and filed its written statement.
In spite of service of notice, Respondent No.2 not
appeared before Court, hence placed exparte.
5. Respondent No.1 in its written statement by
denying averments of the petition, but interalia seeks
protection available under Sec.134(c) of M.V.Act. Further
it is admitted that, the owner of the Car bearing Reg.
No.KA02MJ6635 had knowingly and willfully entrusted
his vehicle to a person who had no licence to drive his
vehicle at the time of the accident and caused for
violation of terms and conditions of the policy and
provisions of M.V.Act. Further it is admitted that, both in
the reply given to notice under Sec.133 of M.V.Act as well
7
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
as in the statement recorded by the jurisdictional Police,
the father of the accused Sri.Ramesh S.C. has stated
that, he has purchased the accused Car bearing Reg.
No.KA02MJ6635 from Respondent No.2 and he is yet
to get the Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy
transferred to his name and he has also clearly admitted
that, his son i.e., accused was driving the Car at the time
of the accident. It is admitted that, it had issued an
Insurance Policy in respect of above said vehicle under
its Policy No.0722013116P104647311 valid from
10.07.2016 to 09.07.2017, if there is any liability on this
Respondent, it is subject to terms and conditions of the
policy and valid and effective Fitness Certificate to drive
the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident. Except this
all other defences are formal in nature and among other
grounds prays to dismiss the petition, in both the cases.
8
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, I have
framed the following:
::ISSUES IN MVC NO.1136/2017 & 1137/2017::
1. Whether Petitioners proves that, Kavya
D/o.A.G.Venugopal suffered injuries and
Sangeetha D/o. K. Venugopal died in a road
traffic accident that occurred on
10.11.2016 at about 2.15 p.m. while they
were proceeding in the volkasagon & Polo
Car bearing Reg. No.KA02MJ6635, when
they reached BengaluruKolar, NH75 Road,
Ellay Mallappa Shetty Kere, Bengaluru, at
that time a driver of the above said vehicle
driven in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the divider of the road, as a
result of which, Kavya suffered injuries and
Sangeetha died, as mentioned in claim
petition?
2. Whether Petitioners are entitled for
compensation as prayed in the petition? If
so, from which Respondent?
3. What Order or Award?
9
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
7. As these claim petitions are arising out of the
same accident, MVC No.1137/2017 is clubbed in MVC
No.1136/2017 for recording of common evidence and for
disposal.
8. In order to prove the above said issues,
Petitioner in MVC No.1136/2017 has been examined as
PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11, 16, 21 & 22.The
Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 documents are confronted through
PW1. Petitioner No.1 in MVC No.1137/2017 has been
examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15,
17 to 20. Dr.Pradeep Kumar N. Plastic Surgeon, Malathi
Manipal Hospital has been examined as PW3 and got
marked Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.25 documents. Per contra,
Authorized Representative of Respondent No.1 Company
has been examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.R.3 to
10
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
Ex.R.10. Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 got marked by confrontation
through cross of PW1. PI, Kadugodi Police Station has
been examined as RW2 and no documents got marked
on his behalf.
9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
Petitioners and Respondents.
10. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issues No.1 in : In the Affirmative
both the cases
Issue No.2 in : Partly in the affirmative
both the cases
Issue No.3 in : As per final order for the
both the cases following:
::REASONS::
11. Issue No.1 and 2 in both the cases: As these
issues are interlinked with each other, they are taken
11
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
together for common discussion in order to avoid
repetition of facts and evidence.
12. As these claim petitions have been filed by the
Petitioners under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1989, the
burden is on Petitioners to prove that, the alleged
accident had taken place because of the negligence on
the part of driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA02MJ
6635.
13. In order to prove these issues, the Petitioner in
MVC No.1136/2017 and Petitioner No.1 in MVC
No.1137/2017 have been examined as PW1 and PW2
and Doctor as PW3 respectively and got marked in all
25 documents.
14. In order to prove this fact, PW1 has produced
Police records which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5,
Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.13 i.e., FIR with Complaints, Mahazar,
12
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
Sketch, IMV Report, Charge Sheet, P.M.Report and
Inquest Report. On perusal of oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the Petitioners i.e., Ex.P.1 FIR
which clearly discloses that, on 10.11.2016 at about
2.15 p.m. the Petitioner Kavya was travelling with her
friend Sangeetha in the Volkawagon and Polo Car bearing
Reg. No.KA02MJ6635 on BengaluruKolar NH75
Road, near Ellay Mallappa Shetty Kere, Bengaluru, the
driver of the said Car drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the divider of the
road, due to the impact, both of them have sustained
severe injuries all over the body and Sangeetha
succumbed to the injuries during course of treatment.
15. During the course of crossexamination of
PW1, who is the injured and an eyewitness to the
accident deposed that at the time of accident, one Gokul
13
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
was driving the Car. The said Gokul was drove the Car in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the divider
and then dashed to the another Car coming on the
service road. Due to which herself and her friend
deceased Sangeetha were sustained injuries, her friend
was died. Further she admitted that at the time of
accident the said Gokul, the driver of the Car was not
holding valid and effective driving licence.
16. Further PW2 was also crossexamined by the
1st Respondent's counsel, wherein she deposed that the
accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of
the Car. As per Ex.R.2 the driver of the Car was not
holding valid driving license at the time of accident.
Further she denied the other suggestions made by the 1 st
Respondent's counsel.
14
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
17. Admittedly PW2 is not an eyewitness to the
alleged accident. Regarding the fact of negligence is
concerned, the oral evidence of PW1 is corroborated by
the documents produced like Charge Sheet marked as
Ex.P.5 which clearly indicates that, this accident was due
to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
offending vehicle.
18. Coming to the other aspects, according to the
1st Respondent the driver of the offending vehicle was not
having valid licence to drive the offending vehicle at the
time of accident. In order to substantiate their contention
the Respondent No.1 has examined the Authorized
Representative of the 1st Respondent as RW1 and got
marked Ex.R.3 to Ex.R.10 documents i.e., Authorization
Letter, office copy of the Letter issued to Insured,
Acknowledgement, Copy of the Policy with terms and
15
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
conditions, Charge Sheet, 133 Notice and Reply, copy of
the Statement given by the father of the Accused.
During the course of crossexamination RW1 admitted
that, at the time of accident policy was in force and
denied the other suggestions made by the Petitioner's
counsel. Moreover, though the notice duly served on the
2nd Respondent, he was not appeared before the Court to
contest the case nor produced the driving licence of the
driver of the offending vehicle in order to disprove the
contentions of the Petitioner. Hence, an inference can be
drawn that the driver of the offending Car was not having
valid driving licence at the time of accident.
19. Further the Police Inspector, Kadugodi Police
Station, Bengaluru has examined as RW2 and deposed
that, at the time of accident, the Driver of the Car one
Gokul was not having valid driving licence and he has
16
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
filed charge sheet against him for not having valid driving
license at the time of accident. Further he deposed that
at the time of accident, the 2 nd Respondent was the R.C.
Owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA02MJ6635
and the RC was not transferred in the name of one
Ramesh. During the course of crossexamination, he
denied the suggestions made by the 1st Respondent's
counsel. On perusal of the Charge Sheet at Ex.P.5 reveals
that, the Police have filed charge sheet for the offences
punishable under Section 279, 338, 304A of IPC R/w
Sec.181 of MV Act. This clearly shows that the driver of
the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence
at the time of accident to drive the Car.
20. At the time of arguments, the Petitioner's
counsel relied on a decision reported in AIR 2018 SC
592 between Pappu and others Vs Vinod Kumar
17
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
Lamba and another Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
held that:
"Motor Vehicles Act S.149Insurer's
liabilityAccident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of truckInsurer taking plea
that driver of offending truck had no valid
licenceExcept copy of driving licence of person,
owner of offending truck not producing any
evidence establishing that it was driven by
authorized person having valid driving licence
Fact that offending truck was duly insured
Would not per se make insurance company
liableHowever, insurance company directed to
pay award amount to claimants in first instance
and in turn, recover same from owner of
vehicle".
21. Further it was reiterated in a recent decision
decided on 8th day of August 2018 in Civil Appeal
No.8144 of 2018(Arising out of SLP(C)No. 26955 of
2017) between Shamanna and another Vs The
18
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,
and Others wherein it was held that :
"The award passed by the tribunal directing
the insurance company to pay the compensation
amount awarded to the claimants and thereafter,
recover the same from the owner of the vehicle
in question, is in accordance with the judgement
passed by this court in Swaran Singh and Laxmi
Narain Dhut cases. While so, in our view, the
High Court ought not to have interfered with the
award passed by the Tribunal directing the first
respondent to pay and recover from the owner of
the vehicle. The impugned judgement of the High
Court exonerating the insurance company from
its liability and directing the claimants to
recover the compensation from the owner of the
vehicle is set aside and the award passed by the
Tribunal is restored".
22. In the present case it is necessary to note, as
observed that the owner and the driver did not depose in
evidence and stayed away from the witness box nor
produced the driving licence. Though the 2 nd Respondent
being the RC owner and insured has evidently failed to
19
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
take reasonable care since he could not have been
unmindful of facts which were within his knowledge.
Hence, it is considered that at the time of accident, the
driver of the offending vehicle does not have valid driving
licence.
23. Since there was no Driving Licence, the
residual question is what would be direction. Considering
the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the
insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no
liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the
option and liberty to recover the amount from the
insured. For the purpose of recovering the amount paid
from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a
suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned
executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and
the owner was the subject matter of determination before
20
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner
and in favour of the insurer.
24. Coming to the question regarding quantum of
compensation that has to be awarded to the Petitioner;
In MVC No.1136/2017:
According to the Petitioner Kumari. Kavya V. was
aged 18 years at the time of the accident. In order to
prove her age, she has produced Ex.P.11 Aadhar Card
wherein the birth year of the Petitioner was mentioned as
1998 and the accident took place in the year 2016.
Hence, based on the above document, it is considered
that the Petitioner was aged 18 years as on the date of
the accident. As per the Sarla Varma's Case, the proper
multiplier applicable to the age group of 15 to 25 years is
18.
21
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
25. Petitioner has contended that, she was
studying 1st year B.E., Electrical & Electronic Engineering
in Cambridge Institute of Technology. In this regard she
has produced Attendance Certificate marked as Ex.P.16
issued by Cambridge Institute of Technology. These are
the documents shows that, she was a bright student and
on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, she
was not attended the 1st semester exam and even she
could not able to attend the college for further 2 to 3
years and she disabled to do any manual work, which is
resulting in loss of education. By taking into
consideration the fact that the Petitioner is studying in
1st Semister of Electrical and Electronics Engineer at
Cambridge Institute of Technology, but she was not an
earning member. By considering her educational
qualification, the notional income of the Petitioner is
22
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
taken as Rs.10,000/ would suffice for calculating
compensation.
26. PW1 has contended that she has sustained
scalp wound over right parietal region and right posterior
scalp, multiple abrasions and small lacerations, abrasion
over left breast, right foot superficial lacerations, multiple
abrasion and minor superficial lacerations over the left
and right forearm and hands and left sided
pnuemothorax, for which, she has undergone wound
debridement, right temporo parietal rotational
advancement flap and SSG was done and POP
application was also done. In order to prove injury and
treatment taken, PW1 has produced Ex.P.6 Wound
Certificate, Ex.P.7 to 9 Discharge Summaries issued by
Manipal Hospitals, wherein she took treatment as
inpatient from 10.11.2016 to 27.11.2016, 23.05.2017 to
23
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
29.05.2017, 16.07.2017 to 21.07.2017. She has also
produced Medical Prescriptions with 3 Medical Bills for
Rs.12,84,579/ and 4 Photos with 1 CD marked as
Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22.
27. Further Petitioner has examined Dr.Pradeep
Kumar N., Plastic Surgeon at Malathi Manipal Hospital
has been examined as PW3 and got marked Ex.P.23 to
Ex.P.25 which are recent Clinical Examination Report
with Disability Calculation, Inpatient File and Xray.
PW3 has assessed 24.6% disability for the lower limb
component and disfigurement of the scalp, face will be
around 10%. So, 11.09% for the whole body component.
28. Further in his crossexamination PW3
deposed that, the soft tissue injuries sustained by the
Petitioner are related to plastic surgery department. After
2 years 4 months from the date of accident, he has
24
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
assessed the disability. He has not produced any
documents to show that in the mean time the Petitioner
has taken treatment in their hospital. As per Ex.P.23 he
has not suggested any future treatment. He has also not
produced any estimation to show the cost of Rs.4 lakhs
for future surgery. For the facial disfigurement he has
assessed only 3.33% and for loss of muscle power in the
leg he has assessed 8.7%. Further he denied the other
suggestions made by the 1st Respondent's counsel. If the
oral evidence of PW3 is perused, this accident was
occurred in the year 2016 and this PW3 has assessed
disability in the year 2019, that means, as admitted by
him 2 years 4 months from the date of accident and his
own admissions in the chiefexamination reveals that,
normal bony architecture of the skull, she will require
hair restoration and scar revision surgeries in stages.
25
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
Hence, this Court deems fit that, for the sake of
compensation degree of disability for the whole body
will be taken as 8%.
29. PW3 in his chiefexamination admitted that,
Petitioner will require hair restoration and scar revision
surgeries in stages, which is approximately
Rs.4,00,000/. But PW3 has not produced any
estimation in this regard. Hence, Petitioner is entitled for
a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ towards future medical expenses.
30. As per the Discharge Summary, the PW1 was
hospitalized for a period of 31 days, if one month income
is awarded under the head of loss of income during
academic year, laid up period and rest period certainly it
would meet the ends of justice. Considering the above
facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for
26
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
compensation of Rs.10,000/ under the head of loss of
income during the laid up period under rest period.
31. Further due to the accidental injuries, the
Petitioner not only suffered fractured wound, but also
underwent a surgery. According to her at the time of the
accident, she was a 1st year Electrical & Electronics
Engineering student, but due to the accident, she is
permanently disabled and she could not attend the 1st
Semester Exam and also not able to attend the college for
further 2 to 3 years. The accident has also marred her
chances of getting married. Hence, the Petitioner is
entitled for Rs.1,00,000/ as marriage prospects.
32. The Petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount in Rs.
I. PECUNIARY DAMAGES
(Special Damages)
27
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
1. Expenses relating to:
a)to treatment, hospitalization, 12,85,00000
medicines, transportation
(Rs.12,84,579/ rounded off to
Rs.12,85,000/)
b)nourishing food and 20,00000
miscellaneous expenditure
2. Loss of earnings which the
injured would have made had he
not been injured, comprising:
a) Loss of earnings during period 10,00000
of treatment
b) Loss of future earnings on 1,73,00000
account of permanent disability
(Rs.10,000/x12x18x8%
= Rs.1,72,800/ rounded off
Rs.1,73,000/)
3. Future medical expenses 1,50,00000
II. NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES
(General Damages)
4. Damages for pain, suffering and 1,00,00000
trauma as a consequence of the
injuries
5. Loss of amenities ( and/or loss 1,00,00000
of prospects of marriage)
6. Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity)
28
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
Total 18,38,00000
33. Hence, the Petitioner Kum. Kavya V. is
entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,38,000/ with
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (excluding future medical
expenses of Rs.1,50,000/) from the date of petition till
its realization.
34. Coming to the question regarding quantum of
compensation that has to be awarded to the Petitioners;
In MVC No.1137/2017:
In order to prove that, they are the legal
representatives of the deceased Sangeetha, the
Petitioners have produced Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 Adhaar
Cards of the Petitioner No.1 and deceased, which clearly
discloses the relationship of Petitioner No.1 with
deceased Sangeetha. In order to show that the 2 nd
29
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
Petitioner is the father of the deceased, she has not
produced any documents. In the inquest also there was
no mention of his name nor he was made as witness in
the charge sheet.
35. According to the Petitioners, the deceased
Sangeetha was aged about 19 years at the time of
accident. In order to prove the age of the deceased, PW2
has produced Ex.P.15 Aadhar Card of the deceased
wherein year of birth of the deceased is mentioned as
1998 and the accident was occurred in the year 2016.
Hence, based on the above said document, this Court
has to consider the age of the deceased as 18 years at the
time of accident. As per the Sarla Varma's Case, the
proper multiplier applicable to the age group of 15 to 25
years is 18.
30
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
36. In a decision reported in (2018) 3 SCC 18
between Sube Singh V Shyam Singh, wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India held that:
"Section 166 and 168Compensation
Computation of - Multiplier: Deceased aged
23 years, parents being in age group of 40 to
45 years, High Court applied multiplier 15,
taking age of parents in to consideration.
Following Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121,
Munna Lal Jain (2015) 6 SCC 347, and five
Judge Bench judgement in Pranay Sethi
(2017) 16 SCC 680, it was reiterated, that
legal position is that multiplier should depend
on age of deceased and not on age of
dependants. Hence, appellants were justified
in insisting on applying multiplier 18.
37. The above decision are aptly applicable to the
case on hand and as per the said decision in the instant
31
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
case the deceased Sangeetha was aged 18 years at the
time of her death. Hence, based on the Ex.P.15, without
any other go, this Court has to consider the age of the
deceased as 18 years. As per the Sarla Varma's Case,
the proper multiplier applicable to the age group of 15 to
25 years is 18.
38. Coming to the question of employment and
monthly income of the deceased is concerned, in a
judgment in Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) NO.25590
OF 2014 in between National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s.
Pranay Sethi passed on 31.10.2017, Hon'ble Apex Court
had overruled the ratio laid down in Rajesh and Ors.
V/s. Rajbir Singh and others case and directed all the
MACT Tribunals to follow the guidelines mentioned in
Pranay Sethi's Case and it is also observed that,
Tribunals shall follow the fixation of multiplier as
32
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
mentioned in Sarla Varma's Case and further a fresh
table is prepared for addition of salary in case of death
for calculation of future prospects. It was also held in a
recent decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 between Hem
Raj Vs Oriental Insuance Co.Ltd., and others. Hence,
the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi's Case binds this Tribunal. Again a doubt
arose in the mind of the Court as to whether
compensation under the head of loss of love and affection
has to be awarded or not. On careful study of the ratio
laid down in Pranay Sethi's Case, the question dealt by
the Hon'ble Apex Court was only regarding award of
future prospects and addition and deduction of actual
salary of the deceased.
39. If the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi's Case
is applied to the case in hand, it is contended by the
33
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
Petitioners that, deceased was a studying in First Year
Electrical & Electronics Engineering at Cambridge
Institute of Technology and had a bright future. If she
was alive, she would have earned money in her future
and would have had bright career and taken care of them
in their old age financially. In order to prove education of
the deceased, the Petitioners have not produced any
documents except Ex.P.20 Fee Receipt issued by
Cambridge Institute of Technology, Bangalore. On
completion of Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical &
Electronics) from the prestigious institute like Cambridge
Institute of Technology, it can be reasonably assumed
that she would have got a good job. The Petitioners have
stated that the deceased was studying 1st Semester
Engineering in Electrical & Electronics at the time of
accident and she was very bright student. Even if that is
34
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
not accepted for want of any evidence in support thereof,
there would not have been any difficulty for her in getting
some decent job in the private sector. Had she decided to
join Government service and got selected, she would have
been put in the pay scale for Assistant Engineer and
would have at least earned Rs.60,000/ per month.
Wherever she joined, she had a fair chance of some
promotion and remote chance of some high position.
40. Further in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs
R.Vimala on 8 September, 2015 in C.M.A.Nos.713 to
715 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2015 & M.P.No.2 of
2015 it was held that:
"The claimants have filed Ex.A.12, the
Diploma Certificate issued to the deceased which
indicates that the deceased had completed his
Diploma in Welder from D'Silva Engineering
Works, Chennai. Ex.A13 is the Certificate issued
by a private organisation in favour of the
deceased which would indicate that the deceased
35
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
had successfully completed a course in basic Fire
Fighting and Rescue Operation conducted by
Safety and Fire Department. The deceased, at
the time of his death, was 27 years. Therefore, if
we assume that the deceased was in employment
at India, befitting to his qualification, he could
have earned not less than Rs.10,000/ per month.
In this context, we are fortified by the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Reshma
Kumari V. Madan Mohan, 2009 (2) TN MAC 36
(SC): 2009 AIR SCW 6999, wherein it was held
that while determining the quantum of
compensation, the future prospects of the
deceased also has to be taken in relation to his
qualification and income".
41. Therefore, in the light of the above decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and having regard to the age and
qualification possessed by the deceased, this Court
notionally take a sum of Rs.10,000/ as income of the
deceased per month would be sufficient to calculate
quantum of compensation.
36
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
42. The cause title of the claim petition itself
shows that, Petitioners No.1 and 2 are the parents of the
deceased. Since, the Petitioners have not produced any
documents about the 2nd Petitioner, he cannot be
considered as dependant on the deceased. As the
deceased was bachelor at the time of her death, ½ of her
income has to be deducted towards personal and
living expenses, as per Sarla Varma's Case.
43. As per the decision reported in Special Leave
Petition (CIVIL) NO.25590 OF 2014 in between
National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. Pranay Sethi, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that, an addition of
40% to be added to the monthly income if the
deceased was aged below 40 years in case of self
employed person as future prospects.
37
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
44. As per recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India decided on 18th September 2018 between
Magma General Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Nanu Ram @
Chuhru Ram and others, as the Petitioners No.1 & 2
are being the parents of the deceased, they lost parental
aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, support,
guidance and training. Hence, Petitioners No.1 & 2 are
entitled for compensation under the head of loss of Filial
Consortium. Petitioners have also produced Ex.P.17
Revised Estimatio for Hospitalization, Ex.P.18 Medical
Bills for Rs.3,20,298/ rounded off to Rs.3,20,000/,
Ex.P.19 Prescriptions, Ex.P.20 Fee Receipt to the tune of
Rs.55,010/ rounded off to Rs.55,000/ and Rs.28,000/
in total Rs.83,000/.
45. Hence, the following calculation is made for
loss of dependency.
38
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
Sl.No. Particulars Calculation Total
(i) Monthly Income Rs.10,000/ p.m.
(ii) 40% of (i) above Rs.10,000/ (+)
if added to the Rs. 4,000/ =
monthly income Rs.14,000/
as future
prospects
(iii) ½ of (ii) of the Rs.14,000/ ()
same to be Rs. 7,000/ =
deducted
towards personal
and living Rs.7,000/ p.m.
expenses
Monthly income
(iv) Compensation Rs.7,000/ x 12 x Rs.15,12,000/
after multiplier 18
of 18 is applied
46. The details of compensation awarded to the
Petitioners are as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 15,12,00000
2. Loss of Filial consortium 80,00000
(Petitioners No.1 & 2
Rs.40,000/ each)
3. Loss of Estate 15,00000
4. Funeral Expenses 15,00000
39
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
5. Medical Expenses 3,20,00000
6. Examination Fees 83,00000
Total 20,25,00000
47. In all, Petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.20,25,000/ with interest at the rate
of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, for
the death of Sangeetha.
48. The total amount of compensation apportioned
among the Petitioners No.1 & 2 are as follows;
Heads Petitioner Petitioner
No.1 No.2
Loss of 15,12,00000
dependency
Loss of Filial 40,00000 40,00000
Consortium
Loss of estate 15,00000
Funeral expenses 15,00000 -
Medical expenses 3,20,00000
Examination Fees 83,00000
Total 19,85,00000 40,00000
40
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
49. In all Petitioners in MVC No.1137/2017 are
entitled for total compensation of Rs.20,25,000/ with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization.
50. As far as awarding of interest on the
compensation amount is concerned, in a recent decision
reported in 2018 ACJ 1300 between Mangla Ram V/s.
Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and others (in CA
Nos.2499 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.2814142
of 2017 decided on 06.04.2018) wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court with regard to interest at the rate of
9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para No.28 of
the judgment held that, 'The appellant would also be
entitled to interest on the total amount of
compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on
41
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
the compensation from the date of filing of the
claim petition till date of realization" and also by
following the principles laid down in (2018) ACJ 1020 in
between ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
V/s. Ajay Kumar Mohanty and another decided on
6.3.2018 (in CA Nos.7181 of 2015 and 1879 of 2016)
at para No.1 and 12 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"QuantumInterestTribunal allowed interest at the
rate of 7.5 per cent which was reduced by High Court
to 7 per centApex Court allowed interest at 9 per
cent per annum from the date of filing of claim
application". In view of the above judgments with regard
to the rate of interest and also it is settled principles of
law that, while awarding interest on the compensation
amount, the Court has to take into account the rate of
42
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
interest on the Nationalized Bank and the rate of interest
at the rate of 9% p.a. cannot said to be on the higher
side. Accordingly, the Petitioners in MVC No.1136/2017
and 1137/2017 are entitled to interest at the rate of
9% p.a.
51. Coming to the question of fixing the liability to
pay the compensation to the Petitioners, Respondent
No.1 being the Insurance Company had issued policy in
favour of Respondent No.2 in respect of Volkswagon &
Polo Car bearing Reg. No.KA02MJ6635 vide its
Insurance Policy No.0722013116P104647311 valid from
10.07.2016 to 09.07.2017 which is valid and effective as
on the date of the alleged accident. Accordingly, the
Respondent No.2 being the insurer is directed to deposit
the amount and recover the same from the R.C.Owner of
the offending vehicle by initiating proceedings before the
43
MVC No.1137/2017
C/w. MVC No.1136/2017
SCCH 5
executing Court. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered
in affirmative and Issue No.2 in partly affirmative, in
both the cases.
52. Issue No.3 in MVC No.1136/2017 and
1137/2017:
On the basis of above discussions, I proceed to pass
the following:
::ORDER::
Claim petition of Petitioners in MVC No.1136/2017 and 1137/2017 are partly allowed with costs.
Petitioner in MVC No.1136/2017 is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,38,000/ (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses 44 MVC No.1137/2017 C/w. MVC No.1136/2017 SCCH 5 of Rs.1,50,000/) from the date of petition till realization.
Petitioners in MVC No.1137/2017 are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only) from the date of petition till realization.
Out of which Petitioners are entitled for Petitioner No.1 Rs.19,85,000/ Petitioner No.2 Rs.40,000/ Petitioners are also entitled for proportionate interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization.
Accordingly the compensation amount shall be paid and satisfied by the insurer/Respondent No.1 in the first instance within 60 days from the date of this order with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law, in both the cases.45
MVC No.1137/2017 C/w. MVC No.1136/2017 SCCH 5 On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioner in MVC No.1136/2017, 75% of the same to be released in her favour by way of crossed cheque on proper identification and remaining 25% to be kept in Fixed Deposit in her name in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years.
On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioner No.1 in MVC No.1137/2017, 75% of the same to be released in her favour by way of crossed cheque on proper identification and remaining 25% to be kept in Fixed Deposit in her name, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years.
On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioner No.2 in MVC No.1137/2017, entire amount to be released in 46 MVC No.1137/2017 C/w. MVC No.1136/2017 SCCH 5 his favour by way of crossed cheque on proper identification.
Fee of counsel for Petitioners is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in both the cases.
Original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.1136/2017 and copy of the same in MVC No.1137/2017.
Draw award accordingly in both the claims. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 4th day of January, 2020) (SHARMILA S.) VIII ADDL. JUDGE & ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.
::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: PW1 : Kumari. Kavya V. PW2 : Smt. Jayalakshmi PW3 : Dr. Pradeep Kumar N. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: Ex.P.1 : Copy of FIR with 2 Complaints Ex.P.2 : Copy of Mahazar 47 MVC No.1137/2017 C/w. MVC No.1136/2017 SCCH 5 Ex.P.3 : Copy of Sketch Ex.P.4 : Copy of IMV Report Ex.P.5 : Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P.6 : Copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.7 to : Discharge Summaries Ex.P.9 Ex.P.10 : Medical Prescriptions with 3 Medical Bills for Rs.12,84,579/ Ex.P.11 : Notarized copy of Aadhar Card Ex.P.12 : Copy of P.M.Report Ex.P.13 : Copy of Inquest Report Ex.P.14 & : Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards Ex.P.15 Ex.P.16 : Attendance Status issued by Cambridge Institute of Technology Ex.P.17 : Revised Estimation for Hospitalization Ex.P.18 : Medical Bills (20 in Nos.) for Rs.3,20,298/ Ex.P.19 : Prescriptions (20 in Nos.) Ex.P.20 : Fee Receipts (2 in Nos.) Ex.P.21 & : 4 Photos with 1 CD Ex.P.22 Ex.P.23 : Recent Clinical Examination Report with Disability Calculation Ex.P.24 : Inpatient File Ex.P.25 : Xray LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: RW1 : Sri. Navakumar RW2 : Sri. Aswath Narayana Swamy B.N. 48 MVC No.1137/2017 C/w. MVC No.1136/2017 SCCH 5 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: Ex.R1 & 2 Ex.R.1 & : Sec.133 Notice and Reply Ex.R.2 (confronted through PW1) Ex.R.3 : Authorization Letter Ex.R.4 : Office copy of the letter issued to insured Ex.R.5 : Acknowledgement Ex.R.6 : Copy of the Policy with Terms and Conditions Ex.R.7 : Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.R.8 & : Copy of Sec.133 Notice and Reply Ex.R.9 Ex.R.10 : Copy of Statement given by the father of the accused (SHARMILA S.) VIII ADDL. JUDGE & ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.