Bangalore District Court
Lakshminarasamma vs K.S.R.T.C on 30 January, 2024
KABC020350462022
BEFORE THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT
BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Ganapati Bhat,
B.Sc., LL.B. (Spl.). L.L.M.
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.6523/2022
Dated: 30th January 2024
Petitioner Smt. Lakshminarasamma,
W/o Late Erobanna,
Aged about 41 years,
Residing at Chikkanayakanahalli,
Rajavanthi Post, Pavagada (Rural),
Tumakur District,
Karnataka - 561 202.
(Sri R.V. Raghavendra, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondent The Managing Director,
KSRTC, Transport House,
K.H. Road, Shanthi Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
(Owner of the Bus bearing
Reg. No.KA-06-F-1168)
(Smt. R. Sharadamba, Advocate)
2 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from respondent for the accidental death of Pavan Kumar, who died due to the accident caused by the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA- 06-F-1168.
2. The facts in brief stated in the petition are as under;
The petitioner has stated that on 16-11-2022 at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased Pavan Kumar was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing No.KA-64-E-3422, slowly and cautiously, by observing all traffic rules and regulations from Nagalamadike side towards Pavagada side at Thimmapura Gate, Pavagada-Nagalamadike road, Thimmapura, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District. At that time the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-06-F-1168 came from Pavagada side in rash and negligent manner, without observing any traffic rules and regulations, endangering to the human life and dashed the vehicle of the deceased. Due to the accident, the deceased has sustained severe injuries all over the body 3 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 and he was succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The dead body of the deceased was shifted to Pavagada Government Hospital, wherein postmortem was conducted and body was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner has performed the funeral ceremony of the deceased. The petitioner has incurred Rs.2,00,000/- towards transportation of dead body, funeral ceremony and other incidental expenses. On account of the death of her son, the petitioner has undergone mental agony, pain and sufferings. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 24 years. He was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month by doing agriculture and coolie work at Chikkanayakanahalli. The petitioner is a handicap person and she was fully depending on the income of the deceased. The jurisdictional police have conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-06-F-1168 in Crime No.239/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 4 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 offending vehicle. The respondent is the owner of the said vehicle. The petitioner has sought for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. She has prayed to allow the petition.
3. In response to the notice, the respondent has appeared before the Tribunal through his counsel and filed the written statement.
The facts in brief stated in the written statement are as under;
The respondent has denied the allegations in the petition. He has stated that at the time of accident, the rider of the motorcycle was moving in rash and negligent manner and he himself dashed the left portion of the bus. He has further stated that the police documents would show that the accident could have been avoided if the rider of the motorcycle had taken little care. He has further stated that the accident was due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-64-E- 3422 by its rider. He has further stated that the petitioner has not produced the documents to prove her relationship with the deceased. He has further stated that 5 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 the petitioner has not produced the documents to prove the age, income and occupation of the deceased. He has further stated that the compensation sought in the petition is exorbitant and excessive. He has further stated that the police have not forwarded the documents, hence, they have not complied the mandatory duty provided under Section 158(6) of I.M.V. Act. He has further stated that the respondent is protected under Section 147 and149 of I.M.V. Act. He has further stated that without adding the insurance company of the motorcycle, the petition is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties. He has further stated that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the driver of the KSRTC Bus is negligent at the time of accident, then also the petitioner is not entitled to the interest at the rate not more than 6% per annum. He has further stated that the petitioner has not produced the required documents for disbursal of the compensation amount. He has further stated that the petitioner is not entitled to compensation as prayed for. He has prayed to dismiss the petition. 6 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022
4. Based on the pleadings the following issues came to be framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that deceased Pavan Kumar, succumbed to the injuries sustained in vehicular accident alleged to have occurred on 16-
11-2022 at about 5.00 p.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC Bus, bearing registration No.KA-06-F-1168?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
5. In order to prove their case, the petitioner got examined as PW1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The driver of the bus of the respondent got examined as RW1 and got marked document as Ex.R1.
6. Heard arguments of both the sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the date of birth of the deceased is 01-01-1998 and he was aged about 24 years at the time of accident. He has further argued that the negligence of the offending vehicle is 7 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 clear from the sketch drawn by the police. He has further argued that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, as such respondent is liable to pay compensation. He has further argued that the insurance company of the vehicle of the deceased is not a necessary party. Hence, he has prayed to award the compensation.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC Bus. She has further argued that the driver of the bus was moving in very careful and slow manner, hence, the accident was due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the two- wheeler vehicle. She has further argued that the manner of accident would clearly show that the rider of the two-wheeler vehicle was negligent at the time of accident. She has further argued that the rider of the two-wheeler vehicle was not wearing the helmet at the time of accident. Therefore, he has sustained the head injury. She has further argued that the income and avocation of the deceased was not proved by the 8 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 petitioner. She has further argued that there is violation of Section 158(6) of IMV Act. Hence, she has prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. Perused the pleadings and evidences, on the basis, findings on the issues are 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 ISSUE No.1:
9. The petitioner has stated that her son was moving in the motorcycle bearing No.KA-64-E-3422 and the driver of the KSRTC Bus dashed the said motorcycle. She has further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident and caused the accident to the deceased. She has further stated that the deceased had sustained grievous injuries in the said accident, and he has succumbed to the injuries. The petitioner has further stated that she has incurred expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- for transportation and cremation of the dead body. She has further stated that 9 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 the deceased was aged about 24 years and he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. She has further stated that the jurisdictional police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the KSRTC Bus.
10. In Kusum and Others vs Satbir and Others reported in (2011) SCC 646, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as needs required to be done in a criminal trial.
11. In Parameshwari vs. Amir Chand and others reported in (2011) SCC 635, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a road accident claims the strict principle of proof in a criminal case are not required.
12. In Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the claimants were merely to establish their case on touch stone of preponderance of probability and that standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.
10 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022
13. In Dulcina Fernandes and others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another ruling reported in (2013) 10 SCC 6, the Hon'ble Supreme court has held as follows:
"7.It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pickup van as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt."
14. In Anita Sharma and others vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and another, ruling reported in (2021) 1 SCC 171, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record 11 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true."
15. Therefore, from the above rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that the strict proof of accident is not required and preponderance of probability is to be applied in all the MVC cases. The concept of beyond reasonable doubt is not applicable in deciding the MVC cases by the Tribunal.
16. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, she has got marked as many as 13 documents. Out of the said documents, Ex.P1 is the FIR, Ex.P2 is the complaint, Ex.P3 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P4 is the vehicle seizure mahazar, Ex.P5 is the sketch, Ex.P6 is the inquest panchanama, Ex.P7 is the postmortem report, Ex.P8 is the IMV report, Ex.P9 is the 133 notice, Ex.P10 is the reply, Ex.P11 is the charge sheet, Ex.P12 is aadhar cards and Ex.P13 is handicapped certificate. In Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, it is stated that the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-06-F-1168 drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed the two-wheeler motorcycle bearing No.KA-64-E-3422. It is stated that the front portion of the bus has dashed the back side of 12 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 the motorcycle. It is further stated that due to the accident, the rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injury to his head and left leg. It is further stated in the said documents that the rider of the motorcycle succumbed to the injuries on spot. It is further stated that the accident is due to the sole negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. In Ex.P5, the accident spot is shown as right side road of the bus. It is shown that the bus has dashed the two-wheeler by moving towards its right side. Therefore, from the sketch it is clear that the bus has changed its lane. Further, it is admitted fact that the bus has dashed the back side of the two-wheeler vehicle. It is not the case of the driver of the bus that he was overtaking a vehicle. If that is the case,then the driver of the bus has to take the precautions like applying the brake, horn, indicator, etc. This fact was not stated in any police documents or by the respondent. The respondent has not challenged the Ex.P5 in any court. From Ex.P6, it is clear that the rider of the two-wheeler vehicle succumbed to the injuries. Ex.P7 is the postmortem report wherein the doctor has 13 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 opined that the death was due to poly trauma injuries in the road traffic accident. The head injury and injury to the left lower limb is also mentioned in the said document. The injuries sustained to the deceased is clear from this document.
17. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no damage shown in the back side of two-wheeler vehicle in Ex.P8.She has further argued that the theory of the petitioner that the bus has dashed the two-wheeler vehicle from its back is not sustainable. She has further argued that the left side of the bus gets damaged as such manner of accident stated in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 is contrary to the damages shown in Ex.P8. From Ex.P8, it is clear that both the vehicles are damaged. The front left side head light and bumper corner was damaged. The front head light, mudguard, shockobserber, crash guard etc., of the two-wheeler vehicle are damaged. If the bus touched the two- wheeler then there was every chance of falling the of two-wheeler vehicle. Therefore, there is possibility of the front part damages to the two-wheeler. Ex.P11 is the 14 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 charge sheet, wherein police have alleged that the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus is the reason for the accident. They have alleged the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the KSRTC Bus. They have further alleged Section 134(A) & (B) of IMV Act. The complainanat has lodged complaint immediately after the accident i.e., within 3 hours from the accident. In all the police documents, it is stated that the driver of the KSRTC Bus driving the bus in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident.
18. The petitioner entered into the witness box and examined as PW1. She has re-iterated the contents of the petition in her examination-in-chief. In the cross- examination, she has stated that she has got agricultural land and her son was earning and maintaining her family. She has stated that her brother had given complaint to the police. She has stated that she is physically handicap.
19. The the driver of the offending vehicle of the respondent got examined as RW1.He has re-iterated the 15 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 contents of the written statement in his examination-in- chief. He has stated that he was not driving the bus in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there are time limitation to travel from a particular bus station to destiny bus station. He has admitted that there is no curve shown in the Ex.P5. He has admitted that he has not given police complaint. If the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased, then the driver of the bus could have given the complaint to the police. But, he has not lodged the complaint.This would show that he was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner as on the date of accident. He has not assigned any special reason for not giving the complaint to the police. Therefore, from the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-06-F-1168 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident to the deceased. She has further proved that the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
16 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 ISSUE No.2:
20. As discussed above, the petitioners have shown that the vehicle of the respondent has caused the accident and the accident is due to rash or negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner has already shown that the death of the Pavan Kumar is due to accidental injuries She has produced her Aadhar card. This document would show her relationship with the deceased. The petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased, hence, she is entitled to the compensation.
In the case of National Insurance Co. vs. Birender ruling reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"12. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative.
Notably, the expression "legal 17 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022
representative" has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Court observed thus:
"9. In terms of clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said subsection makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents.
Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act.
10. .....The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.
11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the 18 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under Section 2(1)(g)
12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino vs. Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression "legal representative". As observed in Gujarat SRTC vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.
13. In Manjuri Bera (supra), in paragraph 15 of the said decision, while adverting to the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between "right to apply for compensation" and "entitlement to 19 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 compensation". The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to the aid of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and also earning.
14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only."
According to the ratio laid down in this ruling the legal representatives though not fully dependent on the deceased are entitled to claim compensation under all the heads i.e., under both conventional and non- conventional heads. The total compensation is to be calculated in the following manner:
20 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 The compensation towards loss of dependency : The petitioner is the mother of the deceased Pavankumar. The petitioner has stated that she was depending upon the deceased. She has shown that she is legal representative of the deceased, hence, she is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency. In order to calculate the loss of dependency, the first step is to determine the age and income of the deceased.
The determination of age and income of the deceased : The petitioner has stated that the age of the deceased as on the date of accident is 24 years. To substantiate this point, the petitioner has produced Aadhar card of the deceased. In Ex.P12 i.e., Aadhar card of the deceased, it is sated that his date of birth is 01- 01-1998. Admittedly, the accident took place on 16-11- 2022. Therefore, as on the date of accident the age of the deceased was about 25 years.
The petitioner has stated that the deceased was working as an agriculturist and coolie and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But, the petitioner has not 21 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 produced any documents to show the income of the deceased. Therefore, the notional income is to be considered as income of the deceased as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
In G.T. Basavaraj vs. Niranjan and another in MFA No.7781/2016 judgment dated 11-08-2022, in Ramanna and another vs. Y.B. Mahesh and another in MFA No.140/2017 judgment dated 16- 01-2020, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Anusaya and others in MFA No.101195/2014 judgment dated 05-01-2023, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that when the income is not proved, then the notional income of the deceased as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be adopted as the income of the deceased. The accident took place in the year 2022. Therefore, notional income is to be treated as Rs.15,500/- per month. Therefore, his annual income would be Rs.1,86,000/-.
22 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 As per the ratio laid down in the ruling of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the deceased is also entitled to future prospects though he is a self employed person. Since the deceased is aged about 25 years and a self employed person, the future prospects would be 40% of his income. Therefore, 40% of Rs.1,86,000/- comes about Rs.74,400/-. Therefore, the future prospects of the deceased comes about Rs.74,400/-. If this income is added to the notional income, it comes about Rs.2,60,400/-. This income is within the exemption limits under the Income Tax Act.
The deduction of personal expenses and calculating the multiplicand : The family of the deceased consist of 1 person i.e., petitioner. Therefore, the number of the dependents is 1. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident. Hence, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, the total income available after deducting the personal and living expenses of the 23 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 deceased comes about Rs.1,30,200/-. Therefore, the multiplicand is as follows:
Rs.2,60,400/- - Rs.1,30,200/- = Rs.1,30,200/- is the contribution towards the family.
Ascertaining the multiplier : The appropriate multiplier should be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298. The age of the deceased is found as 25 years. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier is 18.
Therefore, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is calculated as follows :
The age of the deceased is 25 years, number of dependents is 1, Notional income + future prospects is Rs.2,60,400/- per annum. Multiplicand is Rs.1,30,200/-, multiplier is 18. Therefore, the compensation to the petitioner under the head of loss of dependency is Rs.23,43,600/-. Hence, an amount of Rs.23,43,600/- is awarded to the petitioner towards loss of dependency.
24 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 Compensation under conventional heads : As per the judgment of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, following conventional heads they are permissible.
1) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
2) Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
3) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Six years have been lapsed from the date of the judgment. Therefore, 20% is to be increased on this amount. Therefore, the loss of consortium comes about Rs.48,000/-, funeral expenses comes about Rs.18,000/- and loss of estate comes about Rs.18,000/-.
In Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others ruling reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"21. A Constitution Bench of this court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680: (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248: (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of 25 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse:
[Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation":
(Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).
21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training".
21.3. 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 their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most 26 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
As per the ratio laid down in this case, the consortium is to be given under 3 heads i.e., spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.48,000/- towards filial consortium.
21. The details of compensation proposed to be awarded are as under:
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 23,43,600-00
2. Loss of filial consortium Rs. 48,000-00
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 24,27,600-00
22. In all, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.24,27,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 27 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 Liability:
23. The petitioner has proved that the accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-06-F-1168. The respondent has stated that the deceased was negligent at the time of accident. This fact is not substantiated by any independent, cogent and reliable evidence. The investigation papers and the documents would show that the accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay the entire compensation amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
Apportionment :
24. The petitioner is the mother of the deceased.
The petitioner has proved that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. She has further shown that she is entitled to total compensation of Rs.24,27,600/-. Further she has shown that the respondent is liable to pay compensation to her. Hence, I answer issue No.2 partly in the affirmative.
28 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 ISSUE No.3:
25. In view of the findings, the petition deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.24,27,600/- (Rupees twenty four lakhs, twenty seven thousand and six hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount
awarded to petitioner, 30% of the
compensation amount with
proportionate interest shall be
deposited in her name as FD in any
nationalized bank for the period of two years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 70% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to her through E-
29 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022 payment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 30th day of January 2024) (Ganapati Bhat) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW1 Smt. Lakshminarasamma Documents marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P1 Copy of FIR
Ex.P2 Copy of Complaint
Ex.P3 Copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P4 Copy of Vehicle Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P5 Copy of Sketch
Ex.P6 Copy of Inquest Panchanama
Ex.P7 Copy of Postmortem Report
Ex.P8 Copy of IMV Report
Ex.P9 Copy of 133 Notice
Ex.P10 Copy of Reply
Ex.P11 Copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P12 Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards (2 in
nos.)
Ex.P13 Copy of Handicapped Certificate issued
by District Hospital
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondent:
RW1 Sri D. Malappa 30 (SCCH-16) MVC 6523/2022
Documents marked on behalf of the respondent:
Ex.R1 Notarized copy of ID Card
(Ganapati Bhat)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.