Bangalore District Court
Sri. Arul Moli vs Sri. Prashanth M.N on 30 January, 2016
BEFORE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
(SCCH-11)
DATED THIS 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2016
PRESENT: SRI. GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI, B.A,LL.B(SPL).
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM
M.V.C NO.4232/2014
PETITIONERS: 1. Sri. Arul Moli,
Aged about 32 Years,
S/o Subramani.
2. Kum. Lavanya
D/o Arul Moli,
Aged about 9 Years.
3. Kum. Deepika,
D/o Arul Moli,
Aged about 7 Years.
4. Kum. Rakshitha,
D/o Arul Moli,
Aged about 2 Years.
Since petitioners No.2 to 4 are minors,
Represented by his father Sri. Arul Moli.
All are residents of No.16/2,
9th Cross, 2nd Main Road,
Balaji Nagar, Ittamadu,
Bangalore-560 085.
(By pleader - Sri. H.V.T. Gowda)
- V/S -
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri. Prashanth M.N.
S/o Umesh Murthy,
Major,
R/o Kaliganahalli (Village),
SCCH-11 2 MVC 4232/2014
K.R. Pet Taluk,
Mandya District,
Mandya.
( Exparte)
2. The Manager,
Bharati Axa General Insurance Company
Limited,
The Ferns Icon,
1st Floor, Sy. No.28,
Doddanekkundi,
Bangalore-560 037.
(By pleader - Sri. A.N. Hegade)
*********
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have filed this claim petition against the respondents, claiming the compensation for the death of deceased Smt. Ammu W/o Sri. Arul Moli in the road traffic accident.
2) It is averred that, on 18.07.2014 at about 11:30am, deceased Ammu was riding TVS Excel bearing No.KA-02-EP-3553 near Bangalore-Magadi Main Road, Doddagollarahatti, Bangalore at H.P.Petrol bunk, at that time, the driver of Lorry bearing No.KA-54- 4630 has driven the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner, SCCH-11 3 MVC 4232/2014 endangering human life by violating the traffic rules and dashed to the TVS Excel from behind. Due to said impact, deceased fell down and Lorry ran over on her and she succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
3) The petitioner No.1 has spent more than Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, funeral expenses and other incidental expenses. The deceased was aged about 25 years and working as Helper and Mason and earning Rs.300/- per day and she was also working as house Maid on Sundays and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to the accident, the petitioners are left with only pain, mental agony, suffering, loss of dependency, loss of estate, loss of affection, loss of matrimonial life, loss of expectancy and their life has become miserable. The Tavarekere police have registered the case in crime No.494/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A of IPC. The respondents being owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
SCCH-11 4 MVC 4232/2014
4) Though notice served upon the respondent No.1, he has not appeared and contested the claim petition. Hence, respondent No.1 has been placed exparte.
5) The respondent No.2 has filed written statement and has not admitted that, the vehicle bearing No.KA-54-4630 was insured with the respondent No.2 and it was valid on the date of accident. The respondent No.1 has not furnished the particulars of vehicle i.e., permit, F.C and driving licence. Without these particulars, the respondent No.2 finds it difficult to submit an effective statement of objections and liberty may be given to the respondent No.2 to file elaborate written statement on receipt of the material particulars and information. The liability of the respondent No.2 is subject to the valid driving licence and other documents. The respondent No.1 has failed to comply under Section 134(c) of Motor Vehicles Act and jurisdictional police have not complied the provisions under Section 158 of Motor Vehicles Act. At the time of accident, deceased has ridden the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, without following traffic rules and regulations and she suddenly taken turn towards right side without any indication and came in SCCH-11 5 MVC 4232/2014 the line of motion of Lorry. This rash and negligent act on the part of the deceased was too sudden and without any warning or signal and rider changed lane of traffic and switched over to the line of traffic of Lorry and, the accident was inevitable and beyond the control of anybody. The deceased has contributed 100% to the cause of accident and she was riding motor cycle without valid and effective driving licence and contributory negligence is to be apportioned against her. The petitioners have not impleaded the owner and insurer of TVS XL who are necessary party as per decision in ILR 1999 Kar. 403 (Ganesha case) and claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant and they are trying to convert an unfortunate incident into windfall. If the respondent No.1 fails to appear or contest the claim petition, the respondent No.2 may be permitted to take all defences available to the insured under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act including actionable negligence and quantum of compensation. The respondent No.2 may be permitted to take all defences available under condition No.2 of the insurance policy. In the event, this Hon'ble Court passes an award, the rate of interest shall SCCH-11 6 MVC 4232/2014 not exceed 6% in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Geetha's case and reiterated in Jagdisha's case vide AIR 1972 SC 2466 and ILR 1990 Kar. 4384 and ILR 2000 Kar 1098, ILR 2000 Kar 3809 and ILR 2001 Kar 493. Therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6) The petitioner No.1 himself examined as PW-1 and also examined Sri. C.G. Srinivas S/o Govindaiah as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 14 and closed the evidence.
7) The respondent No.2 has examined Sri. A. Yalagaiah S/o Yalagaiah, Police Inspector of Kengeri Police Station as RW.1 and Sri. Anwar Pasha S/o Wajeer Ali as RW.2 and got marked Ex.R.1 to 12 and closed the evidence.
8) Heard the arguments of learned counsels for both parties and perused the evidence on record.
9) From the pleadings, the following issues are framed::
1. Whether petitioners prove that, deceased Ammu W/o Sri. Arul Moli succumbed to the injuries on the spot due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the SCCH-11 7 MVC 4232/2014 offending vehicle bearing No.KA-54-4630 on 18.07.2014 at about 11.30 a.m. on Bengaluru-
Magadi main Road, Doddagollarahatti, Bengaluru when deceased was riding TVS Excel bearing No.KA-02-EP-3553?
2. Whether claim petition is bad for non-
joinder of the parties?
3. Whether petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed in the claim petition?
If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from whom?
4. What order or Award?
10) My findings on the above points are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative;
Issue No.2: Negative;
Issue No.3: Partly affirmative;
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,72,500/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation, from respondent No.2.
Issue No.4: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11) Issue No.1: PW.1 has stated in his evidence that, on 18.07.2014 at about 11:30am, deceased Ammu was riding TVS SCCH-11 8 MVC 4232/2014 Excel bearing No.KA-02-EP-3553 on Bangalore Magadi Main Road, near H.P Petrol bunk, Doddagollaratti, Bangalore. He has stated that, the driver of Lorry bearing No.KA-53-4630 has driven the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner, endangering human life with high speed and dashed to the TVS Excel and Lorry ran over the deceased by which, she succumbed to the injuries on the spot. He has also stated that, Tavarekere police have registered the case against the driver of the offending vehicle in Crime No.494/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC.
12) In the cross-examination of PW.1, he has stated that, he has not given complaint before the police about the accident. He has denied the suggestion that, the deceased was not holding driving licence at the time of accident to ride the motor cycle.
13) The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted in his arguments that, on 18.07.2014 at about 11:30am, deceased Ammu was riding TVS Excel vehicle bearing No.KA-02-EP-3553 near Magadi Main Road, near H.P Petrol bunk, Doddagollaratti, Bangalore, at that time, the driver of Lorry bearing No.KA-53-4630 SCCH-11 9 MVC 4232/2014 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased and Lorry ran over the deceased and she succumbed to the injuries. He has also submitted that, the Tavarekere police have registered the case in Crime No.494/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A of IPC and accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. He has submitted that, the petitioner No1 himself examined as PW.1 and also produced certified copy of complaint, FIR, panchanama, inquest panchanama, postmortem report, IMV report and charge sheet which are marked as Ex.P.1 to 7 which show that, accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle. He has submitted that, PW.2 who is eye witness to the incident has been examined and his evidence clearly shows that, the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the accused driver.
14) He has also filed further written arguments and contended that, when the matter was posted for respondent side arguments, respondent No.2 come up with an application to SCCH-11 10 MVC 4232/2014 examine the investigating officer and investigating officer appeared before this Court and produced investigation record and driving licence pertaining to the case, which are marked as Ex.R.1 to 11. He has submitted that, due to typographical error, the name of the driver is replaced by the owner in column No.12 of the charge sheet and to that effect, memo was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore to rectify the mistake in the charge sheet and thereafter it was corrected and charge sheet has been submitted to the court. He has also submitted that, as per Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, investigating officer has recorded the statement of the owner and arrested the accused by name Narayana Gowda. He has submitted that, the respondent No.2 examined RTO official of Mandya regarding validity of driving licence and the owner of Lorry bearing No.KA-53-4630 appeared before this Court and produced the driving licence extract. He has argued that, as per the order passed by CJM, Bangalore Rural Court, jurisdictional police have arrayed Sri. Narayana Swamy as driver of offending vehicle instead of Prasad S/o Umesh Murthy and said order is complied by the jurisdictional police and Narayana Gowda has been shown as accused in the amended charge sheet on the basis of which, charge SCCH-11 11 MVC 4232/2014 sheet has been filed under Section 279, 304-A of IPC R/W. Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act.
15) The materials on record discloses that, the petitioners have produced true copy of complaint and FIR, which are marked as Ex.P.1 and P.2 and as per the said documents, on 18.07.2014 at about 11:30 a.m., when deceased Ammu was proceeding on TVS Excel vehicle bearing No.KA-02-EP-3553 on Bangalore-Tavarekere road, at that time, driver of Lorry bearing No.KA-54-4630 has driven the said vehicle from Bangalore towards Tavarekere in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased. The petitioners have also produced true copy of panchanama, which is marked as Ex.P.3. The petitioners have produced inquest panchanama and postmortem report about death of deceased. The petitioners have produced Motor Vehicle Inspection Report and as per the said document, no visible damages found to the Lorry bearing No.KA- 54-4630 and all other parts of the vehicle were in order and both rear view mirror, right side of crush guard, right side foot rest bent and said damages are caused to the motor cycle bearing No.KA-02- EP-3553. The petitioners have produced true copy of charge sheet, SCCH-11 12 MVC 4232/2014 which is marked as Ex.P.9 and in the said document, in column No.12, accused has been shown as Prasad S/o Umesh Murthy. Petitioners have produced certified copy of order sheet in CC No.6961/2015 and as per the said document, the PSI, Tavarekere police Station submitted a requisition on 03.09.2015 stating that, in the column of the accused, the name of the surety has been shown as accused in the charge sheet and it was brought to the notice of the Court by concerned Administrative Shiresthedar and counsel for accused filed memo stating that, the surety has been arrayed as accused in the charge sheet. In the order dated:
16.10.2012, it was observed that, Sri. Prasad S/o Umesh Murthy had executed bail bond to the accused by name Nagayanagowda S/o Madanagowda. Accordingly, the memo was allowed and in the charge sheet column, accused Narayanagowda is shown as a driver and rectified charge sheet has been submitted to the Court on 13.01.2016. The petitioners have also produced requisition submitted by police and notice was issued by the Court and rectified charge sheet filed by the police as per Ex.P.9 against the driver of the vehicle as accused in the case. The respondent insurance company examined investigating officer who has stated SCCH-11 13 MVC 4232/2014 that, he has filed charge sheet against accused Narayanagowda as driver of the said vehicle. Even though, RW2 has stated that, as per Ex.R.12, the driver by name Prasad S/o Umesh Murthy was not having driving licence, the said aspect is not at all considerable. Because, whether owner of the vehicle was having driving licence or not is not the question to be decided and as per the police records, one Narayanagowda was the driver of the said vehicle, who was arrested and released on bail, which is clear from the police records. On perusal of the oral evidence of PW.2, who is eye witness to the incident, he has stated that, driver of the offending vehicle has driven the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the TVS Excel vehicle bearing No.KA-02-EP-3553 and due to the said impact, deceased succumbed to the injuries. In the cross-examination, he has stated that, he was standing at Gollarahatti Petrol Bunk and he has seen the accident, after hearing the loud sound and he went to the spot along with his friend. On perusal of the evidence of PW.2, it discloses show that, accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. So, I answer issue No.1 in Affirmative.SCCH-11 14 MVC 4232/2014
16) Issue No.2: Respondent No.2 has taken contention that petitioners have not impleaded owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing No.KA-02-EP-3553 and claim petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. But, this contention is not acceptable. Because, police have registered the case and after investigation, they have filed charge sheet against the driver of offending vehicle and there are no materials on record to show that, as on the date of the accident, deceased was riding her motor cycle in rash and negligent manner. In the absence of any materials to that effect, the contention taken by the respondent No2 is not acceptable. So I answer issue No2 in the negative.
17) Issue No.3: PW.1 has stated in his evidence that, he has spent more than Rs.30,000/- towards transportation charges, funeral charges and other incidental expenses. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2339/2015. In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court has awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Para No.12 of the said SCCH-11 15 MVC 4232/2014 judgment, though the Hon'ble High Court has awarded meager amount of Rs.20,000/ under the said head. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the judgment reported in Juju Kuruvila and others V/s Junjujamma Mohan and others and awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and also by following the decision reported in Kalpanaraj and Others V/s Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation 2014 (5) SCALE 479 awarded the compensation of Rs.25,000/-. By following the principles laid down in the said decisions towards award of funeral expenses and also following the principles laid down in the decision reported in Rajesh and others V/s Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54, I hold that, petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of transportation of dead body and funeral obsequies. Hence, petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the said head.
18) Due to the untimely death of the deceased, petitioners have to lose love and affection of the deceased throughout their life and they have to lead their life in the sad memory of the deceased. In the light of the principles laid down in the decision reported in SCCH-11 16 MVC 4232/2014 Juju Kuruvila and others V/s Junjujamma Mohan and others and principles laid down in the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Civil Appeal No.770/2014 in which, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded for loss of love and affection by following the decision in Rajesh and others V/s Rajbir Singh and others. By following law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. So, petitioners are entitled for awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of Love and affection.
19) In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Yeramma and Others V/s G. Krishnamurthy and Another, which is relied by the learned counsel for petitioners, it is reported in AIR 2015 SC 1145, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the decision reported in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others V/s National Insurance Company Ltd., and others, 2012(11) SCC 738. Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of estate. Even in the judgment of Civil appeal No.2933/2015, Sruti Gupta V/s United Insurance India SCCH-11 17 MVC 4232/2014 and Another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the decision in Juju Kuruvila and others V/s Junjujamma Mohan and others, 2013 SCC 166 and awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of estate. In the light of the principles laid down in the said decisions, I hold that, petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of Loss of Estate.
20) Petitioner No.1 has lost his wife at his young age and he has lost companionship, love, affection, care and protection etc as being husband of the deceased. It is the right of the petitioner No.1 to the company, society, solace, affection, and sexual relations with his deceased wife and it is just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of consortium and compensate the loss of spouse's action, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations in future days as held in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (Rajesh V/s Rajbir Singh) 2013 ACJ 1403. Hence, the petitioner No.1 is awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. SCCH-11 18 MVC 4232/2014
21) The petitioner No.2 to 4 have lost their loving mother and caretaker at their young age. In the light of principles laid down in the decision reported in (Rajesh V/s Rajbir Singh) 2013 ACJ 1403, it is just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of care and guidance for minor children. Hence, the petitioners are awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of care and guidance for minor children.
22) PW.1 has stated in his evidence that, deceased was aged about 25 years and she was working as helper to mason and earning Rs.300/- per day and also working as house keeper on Sundays and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. But, there are no documents about income and avocation of the deceased. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he has stated that, the deceased was doing mason work under one Venkatesh and she was earning Rs.300/- per day, but no documents are produced to that effect. He has stated that, his wife was going to the house hold work at about 6:00am and she has returning to the home at 7:00 am and later on, she was doing mason work. But, there are no documents SCCH-11 19 MVC 4232/2014 to that effect. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2933/2015 in which, deceased was the mother of the claimant who died in the accident and claimant filed the claim petition and the deceased was working as permanent teacher in Government School and she was drawing salary of Rs.4,100/- per month and she was aged about 45 years and Hon'ble Supreme Court considered her monthly income at Rs.6,000/- and added 30% towards future prospectus and awarded the compensation of Rs.8,73,600/-. But, in this case, the deceased was working as coolie and she was not having fixed salary. He was relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Civil Appeal No.779/2014 (Yeramma and Others V/s G. Krishnamurthy and Another). In the said decision, the deceased was working in Assistant Police Sub-Inspector and drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- and Hon'ble Apex Court considered his salary and after deducting income tax of Rs.23,400/-, awarded the compensation of Rs.23,16,600/- under the head of loss of dependency. But, in this case, the deceased was working as coolie and she was not having any fixed income. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble SCCH-11 20 MVC 4232/2014 Supreme Court reported in Munna Lal Jain and another V/s Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, Civil Appeal No.4497/2015. In the said decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the decision of Rajesh and others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others, 2013 (9) SCC 65 held that, if the victim below the age of 40 years, there must be addition of 50% while computing the future prospectus. He has referred judgment of Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.1549/2013 (MV) CROB No.11/2014 in MFA 1549/2013. But, in this case, the deceased was coolie worker and there are no documents about income and avocation of the deceased. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in Royal Sundaram alliance Insurance Co., Ltd., V/s Manmeet Singh and others, 2012 ACJ 721. In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court held as under:
Quantum - Fatal accident - Principles of assessment-Homemaker-Determination of value of services-Services rendered by housewife are countless, she has no fixed hours of work, she is always in attendance to take care of each and SCCH-11 21 MVC 4232/2014 every need of the family at the cost of her personal comfort and health-Indian and foreign case-law and various factors discussed-Method of computation of loss of dependency based on prevailing minimum wages commensurate with educational qualifications of the housewife with addition and subtraction of certain percentage according to her age formulated.
In the said decision, deceased was aged about 34 years and she was household and the Hon'ble High Court considered her minimum age at 41 and added 25% and awarded compensation of Rs.9,95,040/-. In this case also, deceased is house wife and though it is shown that, she was working as coolie, no documents are produced. He has also relied upon one more judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court reported in 2013 (2) T.A.C. 860 (Raj.), which is pertaining to the impleadment of necessary parties. Since that stage has been passed the matter, the question of impleading does not arise at all. Hence, the principles laid down in the said decision are not applicable to the facts of this case. He has SCCH-11 22 MVC 4232/2014 relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in United India Insurance Company Limited V/s Basanti and other, 2013 (4) T.A.C. 555 (Del.) wherein deceased was domestic helper and income of the deceased was Rs.20,000/- which was disputed and her monthly income was taken at Rs.20,000/-. But in that case, deceased was domestic servant, who was serving of 30 to 35 years. But in this case, petitioners have not adduced any evidence of employer of deceased to show her income. The learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MAC APP 89/2015 in which, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has followed the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High court in Royal Sundaram alliance Insurance Co., Ltd., V/s Manmeet Singh and others, 2012 ACJ 721 in which, it discussed about on the aspect of determining the value of homemaker. In para No.34 of the decision reported in Royal Sundaram alliance Insurance Co., Ltd., V/s Manmeet Singh and others, 2012 ACJ 721, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
Quantum-Fatal accident- Deceased aged 34, housewife, non-matriculate-Claimants; 3 children - Death of husband in the same accident-Tribunal SCCH-11 23 MVC 4232/2014 awarded Rs.8,50,000-Appellate court taking minimum wages at Rs.4,146/- p.m., added 25 percent, adopted multiplier of 16 and assessed loss of dependency at Rs.9,95,040 plus Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses; total Rs.10,25,0040- Award of Rs.8,50,000/- upheld in the absence of cross-objections or cross-appeal.
23) The deceased was working as coolie as per the evidence of PW.1. But, there are no documents about income and avocation of the deceased. Further, by following the principles laid down in the above said decision, the notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.5,000/-. The deceased was aged about 25 years as per the post mortem report and inquest panchanama and 27 years as per the ration card. Hence, her age is taken in between 26 to 30 and 50% is added towards future prospectus in the light of principles laid down in the decision of Rajesh and others V/s Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ 1403 . Then actual income of the deceased will be Rs.7,500/-. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court the decision reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 (Sarla Verma's case) SCCH-11 24 MVC 4232/2014 when number of dependents is 4 to 6, ¼ is deducted towards persons expenses. In this case also, the petitioner No.1 to 4 are dependents upon the income of the deceased. Hence, 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Then the multiplier applicable to the facts of the case is '17' as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sarla Verma' s case AIR 2009 SC 3104. Then loss of income will be as under:
Rs.5,675/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.11,47,500/-
Hence, petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.11,47,500/-. So, I hold that, petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.11,47,500/- under the head of loss of dependency.
24) The calculation table stands as follows:-
1) Loss of dependency Rs. 11,47,500/-
2) Funeral, obsequies and Rs. 25,000/-
transportation of dead body
3) Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/-
4) Loss of estate Rs. 1,00,000/-
5) Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/-
SCCH-11 25 MVC 4232/2014
6) loss of care and guidance Rs. 1,00,000/-
for minor children
Total Rs. 15,72,500/-
Therefore, in total, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,72,500/ along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation-.
In the decision relied by the learned counsel for petitioner reported in Nagappa V/s Gurudayal Singh and others, 2003 ACJ 12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 (1) and 169 - Just compensation-Award of compensation more than claimed-Claims Tribunal-Power of Court that Tribunal has jurisdiction to award higher amount of compensation than what is claimed even though it is not likely to cause prejudice to the insurance company-Whether in an appropriate case compensation more than claimed can be awarded-
Held: yes; there is no restriction that compensation SCCH-11 26 MVC 4232/2014 could be awarded only up to the amount claimed;
Tribunal/court is to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence on record; if required, court may permit amendment to the claim petition; there is no question of claim being time- barred; it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action.
In one more decision reported in Tatha Sreevani and others V/s D. Vijaya Kumar and others, 2014 ACJ 516 in which , the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 (1)-Just compensation-
Awarding of compensation more than claimed-Whether compensation more than claimed can be awarded-Held;
yes; the only restriction being that amount awarded should be just and reasonable; it should neither be arbitrary nor unjustifiable.
SCCH-11 27 MVC 4232/2014
25) The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and as on the date of accident, the insurance policy was in force. So, I hold that, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence, I hold that, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,72,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum till its realization. So, I answered issue No.3 in partly affirmative.
26) Issue No.4: In view of answers to point No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,72,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realization from respondent No.2.SCCH-11 28 MVC 4232/2014
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with accrued interest, within one month, from the date of this award.
Out of the awarded compensation amount, Rs.6,72,500/- is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1 including compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the head of consortium and Rs.3,00,000/- each is apportioned to the share of petitioners No.2 to 4.
In case of deposit of the awarded
compensation amount by respondent No.2,
Rs.3,00,000/- shall be deposited in FD in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a period of 5 years, out of the share of petitioner No.1 and remaining amount of Rs.3,72,500/- along with accrued interest on awarded amount shall be released by way of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification. SCCH-11 29 MVC 4232/2014
Entire apportioned amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each in the name of petitioner No.2 to 4 shall be deposited in any nationalized or scheduled bank of the choice of petitioner No.1 till they attain the age of majority and minor guardian of petitioner No.2 to 4 is at liberty to withdraw the accrued interest periodically.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Typed to my online dictation by the Stenographer and corrected by me, then pronounced in Open court on this 30th day of January 2016.) (GANAPATHI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONERS:
PW.1 - Sri. Arul Moli
PW.2 - C.G. Srinivas
SCCH-11 30 MVC 4232/2014
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.P.1 - True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.2 - True copy of F.I.R
Ex.P.3 - True copy of Panchanama
Ex.P.4 - True copy of Inquest panchanama
Ex.P.5 - True copy of PM report
Ex.P.6 - True copy IMV report
Ex.P.7 - True copy of RC smart card
Ex.P.8 - True copy of Ration card
Ex.P.9 - True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P.10 - CC of order sheet
Ex.P.11 - Notice issued by CJM, Bengaluru Rural District. Ex.P.12 - CC of letter written by Police Inspector. Ex.P.13 - CC of rectified charge sheet Ex.P.14 - Wedding card WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS :
RW.1 - A. Yalagaiah
RW.2 - Anwar Pasha
SCCH-11 31 MVC 4232/2014
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS :
Ex.R.1 to 11- Case dairy containing part No.1 to 9 Ex.R.12 - Endorsement I ADDL.SCJ. & MACT.