Bangalore District Court
Smt. Sarwamangala vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 21 February, 2017
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
Present: Smt. ZAIBUNNISA.
B.Com.LL.B.
XXII A.S.C.J. & XX A.C.M.M.
& Member MACT, Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 21st day of February, 2017
M.V.C.No.1684/2015
Petitioners : 1. Smt. Sarwamangala,
W/o Late D.S. Rudranna,
Aged about 57 years.
2. R. Lokesh,
S/o Late D.S. Rudranna,
Aged about 34 years.
3. Revamma,
W/o Late K.R. Shambulingaiah,
Aged about 80 years.
All are residing at
No.49, Ashokan Layout,
Bharathinagar,
Hanusumaranahalli post,
Bangalore-562157.
Petitioner No.3 residing at No.17,
Devalapura,
Hosakote Taluk,
2 SCCH-24
MVC No.1684/2015
Bangalore Rural District.
(Reptd By : Sri. Vasudevamurthy. B.K,
Advocate, Bengaluru).
- Versus -
Respondents: 1. United India Insurance Co.Ltd,
Regional Office, 5th Floor,
Krishi Bhavan,
Hudson Circle,
Bangalore.
2. Mr. Nishanth. C,
S/o Dr. Chinnaswamy,
No.3, KSRTC Senior Officer Quarters ,
BTS Road, Wilson Garden,
Bangalore-560027.
(R-1 by : Sri. B.A. Ramakrishna,
Advocate, Bengaluru.
R-2 by : Sri. C.S. Dwarakanath,
Advocate, Bengaluru).
(ZAIBUNNISA)
XXII A.S.C.J. & XX A.C.M.M.
MEMBER, M.A.C.T. BENGALURU.
3 SCCH-24
MVC No.1684/2015
JUDGEMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming the compensation on account of the death of Sri. D.S. Rudranna, in the Motor Vehicles Accident.
2. The case of the petitioners are as under :
The deceased is the husband of 1st petitioner, father of 2nd petitioner and mother of the 3rd petitioner. That on 15.10.2014 at about 6.30 p.m, the deceased being a pedestrian was crossing the BB Road at Bharathinagar cross, near IAF, very carefully and cautiously observing the traffic rules and regulations. At that time all of a sudden one motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-EP-8148 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life and taking sudden left turn and hit to the deceased. Due to impact, the deceased sustained injuries to head and body. Immediately he was 4 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 shifted to IAF hospital, wherein he took first Aid and later he was shifted to Dheeksha Hospital and later he was shifted to Baptist Hospital for higher treatment, wherein doctors declared that the D.S. Rudranna was succumbed at 8.55 p.m while taking treatment.
3. It is alleged that, the petitioners have spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of body and towards funeral expenses. At the time of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and he being a real estate agent cum land dealer was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month and he was sole earner of the family. Now, because of this accident, the petitioners have lost their beloved husband father and son respectively. The accident is occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said motor cycle. The Jurisdictional police have registered a case and charge 5 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 sheet filed against the said rider in their crime No.177/2014 U/s 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. The said vehicle is having valid policy and it is valid at the time of accident. Hence, the respondents being the insurer and R.C. owner of the said vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
4. After service of notices, respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsels before the Tribunal and filed their separate written statements.
5. The respondent No.1 has field its statement of objections by denying all the petition averments and specifically denied the date, time and place of the accident, age, avocation, income of the deceased. The respondent No.1 has admits the issuance of policy in respect of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-EP-8148 and the liability of this respondent if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the issuance of insurance policy.
6 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 It is contended that, the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant. The 2nd petitioner is working as driver and is an earning member and was major son, hence he is not entitled to maintain a petition on the ground of loss of dependency. The respondent No.1 has denied the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-EP-8148 and the consequent death of one Rudranna. The same was on account of the negligence of the deceased in crossing the road in a hurry and without looking for the vehicles that are coming on the road and at a place which is not meant for pedestrian crossing. Further contended that, the road is National Highway and the deceased could not have cross the road at the place of accident where there is no pedestrian crossing marks. The same becomes clear by a perusal of the sketch prepared by the police. The respondent No.1 has denied the income, death due to accident, amount spent towards medical expenses, 7 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. For all these reasons prayed to dismiss the petition against the 1st respondent.
6. The respondent No.2 has denied all the averments and allegations made in the claim petition and specifically denied the age, avocation, income, death occurred due to accident, amount spent for the death ceremony. The respondent No.2 has contended that, the driver of the vehicle was driven the vehicle with care and cautiously by following the traffic rules. The deceased who was not care and cautious while he was walking on the road and it is occured only on the negligent act of the deceased. The respondent No.2 has denied the amount spent towards medical, transportation of the dead body, avocation of the deceased and prays to dismiss the petition against this respondent.
8 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015
7. On the basis of the above pleadings and the rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues were framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased Sri.D.S. Rudranna ?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased D.S. Rudranna had died due to the injuries sustained in the Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 15.10.2014 at about 6.30 p.m, near IAF, BB Road, Bharathinagar Cross, Bangalore, due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-EP-8148 by its rider as alleged ?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, for what amount and from whom ?
4. What order or award ?
8. In order to substantiate the case made out by the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 got herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 9 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 Ex.P.11. Thereafter, the petitioners closed their side evidence.
9. In order to rebut the evidence so placed on record by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.5. Thereafter respondent's side evidence closed.
10. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials placed on record.
11. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 - In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 - Partly in the Affirmative.
The petitioner are entitled for
a total compensation of
Rs.2,79,000/-.
From respondent No.1 & 2.
Issue No.4 - As per final order.
for the following:
10 SCCH-24
MVC No.1684/2015
REASONS
ISSUE No.1:
12. The petitioners alleged that, 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioner No.2 is the son and petitioner No.3 is mother of the deceased D.S.Rudranna. In order to establish the said relationship, the petitioner No.1 herself got examined as P.W.1. She reiterates the averments and allegations made in the claim petition. In support of her evidence, she has produced Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11 i.e Voter ID card of deceased D.S.Rudranna, Copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.1 and copies of voter ID card of petitioner No.2 and 3. No doubt, Ex.P.9 is stands in the name of the deceased. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.P.10, the petitioner No.1 is the wife and the deceased name is mentioned as D.S. Rudranna and also at Ex.P.11 i.e Voter ID card of petitioner No.2 and in the said document, the deceased name is mentioned as father 11 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 of the petitioner No.2. During the course of cross- examination, the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased is not disputed, nor disputed the said documents. Further, the respondents have not placed any evidence to show that, the petitioners are not the legal representatives of the deceased. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have proved that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. ISSUE No.2:
13. It is the case of the petitioners that, on 15.10.2014 at about 6.30 p.m, the deceased being a pedestrian was crossing the BB Road at Bharathinagar cross, near IAF, very carefully and cautiously observing the traffic rules and regulations. At that time all of a sudden one motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-EP-8148 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner
12 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 endangering to human life and taking sudden left turn and hit the deceased D.S. Rudranna. Due to impact, the deceased sustained injuries to head and body. Immediately he was shifted to IAF hospital, wherein he took first Aid and later he was shifted to Dheeksha Hospital and later he was shifted to Baptist Hospital for higher treatment, wherein doctors declared that the D.S. Rudranna succumbed at 8.55 p.m while taking treatment.
14. In order to prove the actionable negligence, P.W.1 has reiterated all the averments and allegations made in the claim petition in her chief-examination affidavit. P.W.1 has deposed in her evidence that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-EP-8148 by it's rider. During the course of cross examination except the suggestions nothing worthwhile material has been 13 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 elicited from the mouth of this witness so as to discredit her version in the examination-in-chief.
15. The petitioners have relied upon various police documents which are produced at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. Out of these documents Ex.P.1 is copy of the First Information Report, Ex.P.2 is copy of the Statement, Ex.P.3 is copy of Charge Sheet, Ex.P.4 is copy of Sketch, Ex.P.5 is copy of Panchaname, Ex.P.6 is copy of Inquest Report, Ex.P.7 is copy of Post Mortem Report and Ex.P.8 is copy of IMV Report, which are produced to show that accident occurred due to the rash or negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle and a criminal case has been registered against the said rider for the offences punishable under Sec. 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against the said rider for the offences punishable under Sec.279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P.5 14 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 i.e copy of spot mahazar drawn on the seen of the occurrence, which also supports the case of the petitioners. The police documents i.e., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 are marked without any objections.
16. The respondent No.1 and 2 have denied the allegations in respect of involvement of the offending motor cycle in the accident. But, submitted that, accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased since, the deceased crossing road in a hurry and without looking for the vehicles that are coming on the road and at a place which is not meant for pedestrian crossing. The road is National Highway and the deceased could not have cross the road at the place of accident where there are no pedestrian crossing marks. Hence, the said accident was not occurred due to the negligent act on the part of the rider of the motor cycle.
15 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015
17. In order to rebut the evidence so placed on record, the respondent No.2 has examined himself as RW-1. Except the production of Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5 namely, Driving Licence, Registration Certificate, 3-Insurance policy copies before this Tribunal, he has not stated anything about rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle. During the course of cross-examination he has admitted that, the accident has occurred at about 6.30 p.m and at that time he was riding the said vehicle. Thus, the contents of the police documents and oral evidence of PW.1 and RW.1 prima-facie establishes the rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-EP-8148. Under these circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 establishes that the accident has caused solely due to rash and negligent riding of the said motor cycle by its rider and the deceased D.S. Rudranna has died 16 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 due to injuries sustained in the said accident. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered in the Affirmative. Issue No.3 :
18. The petitioners are claiming compensation on account of the death of D.S. Rudranna in the said road traffic accident. It is stated in the claim petition as well as in the evidence by P.W.1 that the deceased was hale and healthy and he was an real estate agent cum land dealer and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. All the petitioners are depending upon the income of the deceased. They have not having any other source of income. She has lost her husband at this stage and 3rd petitioner has lost her beloved son at her old age. The deceased was contributing his entire income to the maintenance of their family, all are thrown into the street now. Her husband was having abundant love and affection towards all of them. They have lost all his love
17 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 and care. She was an old aged house wife and she was not having any earning as all were entirely depending on the earnings of the deceased only.
19. In order to substantiate the avocation and earnings of the deceased, the petitioners have not produced any documents to show the income and avocation of the deceased. It is pertinent to note that, in the petition, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 60 years. Whereas in Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7, Inquest Report and Post Mortem Report, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 62 years as on the date of accident. As per Ex.P.9, the Voter ID card of deceased, the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 15.02.1950. As per the said Ex.P.9, the age of the deceased was 64 years 8 months. Thus in all the above documents, the age of the deceased is shown differently and the said documents are differs with one another in respect of the age of the 18 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 deceased. Under such circumstances, the age of the deceased is considered as 65 years as on the date of the accident and the same is considered for the purpose of application of the multiplier to calculate the loss of dependency. Accordingly, taking into consideration of the present day condition and age of the deceased if the notional income of the deceased is inferred at Rs.4,000/- p.m that would meet the ends of justice. Admittedly, the deceased was a married person. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 is the son and petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased. The petitioner No.2 is major son. In the cross examination PW-1 has deposed that, she got only one son and he is aged about 35 years. At present her son is working as car driver and he is not living with her. Hence, it clearly appears that, he is not a dependant of the deceased.
19 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015
20. I have relied on the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 between Rajesh & others V/s. Rajbir Singh & others & Sarla Verma's case 2009 ACJ 1298(SC) in respect of the income and future prospects of the deceased. In the case on hand, no addition of income for future prospects can be considered to the income of the deceased since deceased is aged about 65 years.
21. In the present case the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.4,000/- per month and it will comes to Rs.48,000/- per annum. Admittedly, the deceased was a married person and as per Ex.P.9 he was aged about 65 years as on the date of the accident. No doubt, petitioner No.1 and 3 were the dependents of the deceased. Under such circumstances, if 1/3rd of the income is deducted towards his personal and living expenses, then the total income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,667/-. As per the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 20 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 1298 between Sarala Verma & Others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & others the appropriate multiplier is '7'. So the Loss of dependency works out to (Rs.2,667/-X12X7) Rs.2,24,028/- which is rounded off to Rs.2,24,000/-.
22. In the case on hand, the petitioner No.1 is the wife, who has lost her husband. Taking into consideration of the said fact, I am of the considered view that it would be just and proper to award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards Loss of consortium.
23. The petitioner No.2 is the major son and petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased. No doubt they have lost love and affection of the deceased. Taking into consideration of the said fact, this Tribunal is of the considered view that, it would be just and proper to award a compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head Loss of Estate, love and affection.
21 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015
24. The case of the petitioners that, they have spent Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony and other incidental expenses. No documents forthcoming for having spent money towards funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioners must have spent money towards transportation of body from the Hospital to resident and then to burial ground and must have spent money for funeral and obsequies ceremony. Hence, in the absence of proof, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards Transportation of body and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head Funeral and obsequies ceremony. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation under the following heads:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.2,24,000/-
2. Loss of consortium. Rs. 10,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection. Rs. 30,000/-
4. Transportation expenses. Rs. 5,000/-
22 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015
5. Funeral & obsequies Rs. 10,000/-
ceremony.
Total Rs.2,79,000/-
So, the petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,79,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.
25. It is held supra by this Tribunal that, the accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-01- EP-8148 by its rider. Respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the R.C. owner of the motor cycle and same is not disputed. The respondent No.1 has admitted for having insured the motor cycle. Hence, the respondents No.1 and 2 being the insurer and R.C. owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Respondent 23 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 No.1 is liable to indemnify the insured. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. Issue No.3:
26. For the foregoing reasons and the discussions as stated above, the petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed in part with costs.
In result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs. The petitioner is awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,79,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit.
The Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioners.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this order.
24 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 Out of the compensation award amount, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, petitioner No.2 is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and petitioner No.3 is entitled for a sum of Rs.59,000/- with proportionate interest. Out of the compensation awarded Rs.50,000/- of the award amount of the petitioner No.1 shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in her name in any of the Nationalised or Scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years free from encumbrance with liberty to draw the accrued periodical interest. Remaining compensation amount shall be disbursed to the petitioner No.1. After such deposit the petitioner No.2 and 3 are at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on Computer, typed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 21st day of February, 2017).
(ZAIBUNNISA) XXII A.S.C.J. & XX A.C.M.M., & MEMBER, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners:
25 SCCH-24
MVC No.1684/2015
P.W.1 - Smt. Sarvamangala.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondents:
R.W.1 - Sri. Nischanth. C. Documents marked on behalf of the Petitioners:
Ex.P.1 - Copy of First Information Report.
Ex.P.2 - Copy of Statement. Ex.P.3 - Copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.P.4 - Copy of Sketch. Ex.P.5 - Copy of Panchanama. Ex.P.6 - Copy of Inquest Report. Ex.P.7 - Copy of Post Mortem Report. Ex.P.8 - Copy of IMV Report. Ex.P.9 - Copy of Voter ID card of Deceased. Ex.P.10 - Copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.1. Ex.P.11 - Copy of Voter ID card of petitioner No.2. Ex.P.12 - Copy of Voter ID card of petitioner No.3.
Documents marked on behalf of the Respondents: Ex.R.1 - Driving Licence of respondent No.2. Ex.R.2 - Original Certificate of Registration of respondent No.2.
Ex.R.3 - Insurance Policy copy.
Ex.R.4 - Insurance Policy copy.
Ex.R.5 - Insurance Policy copy.
(ZAIBUNNISA)
XXII A.S.C.J. & XX A.C.M.M.,
& MEMBER, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
26 SCCH-24
MVC No.1684/2015
AWARD
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA & XXII ASCJ, BENGALURU CITY M.V.C.No.1684/2015 Petitioners : 1. Smt. Sarwamangala, W/o Late D.S. Rudranna, Aged about 57 years.
2. R. Lokesh, S/o Late D.S. Rudranna, Aged about 34 years.
3. Revamma, W/o Late K.R. Shambulingaiah, Aged about 80 years.
All are residing at No.49, Ashokan Layout, Bharathinagar, Hanusumaranahalli post, Bangalore-562157.
Petitioner No.3 residing at No.17, Devalapura, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
(Reptd By : Sri. Vasudevamurthy. B.K, Advocate, Bengaluru).
- Versus -
27 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 Respondents: 1. United India Insurance Co.Ltd, Regional Office, 5th Floor, Krishi Bhavan, Hudson Circle, Bangalore.
2. Mr. Nishanth. C, S/o Dr. Chinnaswamy, No.3, KSRTC Senior Officer Quarters , BTS Road, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560027.
(R-1 by : Sri. B.A. Ramakrishna, Advocate, Bengaluru.
R-2 by : Sri. C.S. Dwarakanath, Advocate, Bengaluru).
WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Claimant/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees Only) for the injuries sustained by the Claimant/Death of In a Motor Accident by Vehicle NO.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before ZAIBUNNISA, XXII A.S.C.J, Member, MACT, Bengaluru in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri.Smt. 28 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The Petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs. The petitioner is awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,79,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit.
The Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioners.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation award amount, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, petitioner No.2 is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and petitioner No.3 is entitled for a sum of Rs.59,000/- with proportionate interest. Out of the compensation awarded Rs.50,000/- of the award amount of the petitioner No.1 shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in her name in any of the Nationalised or Scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years free from encumbrance 29 SCCH-24 MVC No.1684/2015 with liberty to draw the accrued periodical interest. Remaining compensation amount shall be disbursed to the petitioner No.1. After such deposit the petitioner No.2 and 3 are at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2017.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BENGALURU.
By the
Petitioner/s Respondent
Court fee paid on 10.00
petition
Court fee paid on 00.00
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER
MACT, METROPOLITAN AREA
BENGALURU
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR