Bangalore District Court
Smt.Nagamma vs Sri.Kempegowda V on 23 June, 2017
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JUNE 2017
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No. 5559/2016, 5560/2016, 5561/2016,
5562/2016, 5563/2016, 5564/2016, 5565/2016,
5566/2016 and 5567/2016
Petitioners: 1. Smt.Nagamma,
(in MVC W/o Thirumalappa,
5559/16) Aged about 50 years.
2. Sri Thirumalappa,
S/o Late
Gangamunishamappa,
Aged about 55 years.
Both are residing at
No.5,
Billamaranahalli village,
Vidyanagara Post,
Jala Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru -562 157.
PETITIONERS : 1. Sri Narayanaswamy,
(in MVC S/o late Munishamappa,
5560/16) Aged about 48 years.
2. Sri Naveen Kumar N.,
SCCH 1 2 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
S/o Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 20 years.
Both are residing at
No.23,
Billamaranahalli village,
Vidyanagara Post,
Jala Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru -562 157.
PETITIONERS : 1. Sri. Srinivas,
(in MVC S/o Late Narayanappa,
5561/16) Aged about 42 years,
2. Kum. Amrutha B.S.,
D/o Srinivas,
Aged about 16 years.
3. Mast. Anil Kumar B.S.,
S/o Srinivas,
Aged about 13 years.
Since petitioners No.2 &3 are
Minors, they are represented
by
Their natural guardian/father
The 1st petitioner herein.
All are residing at :
No.100,
Billamaranahalli village,
Vidyanagara Post,
Jala Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru -562 157.
SCCH 1 3 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
PETITIONERS : Smt.Nagavenamma,
(in MVC W/o Late Munithirumalappa,
5562/16) Aged about 53 years.
Residing at No.48,
Billamaranahalli village,
Vidyanagara Post,
Jala Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru -562 157.
PETITIONERS : Sri Narayanaswamy,
(in MVC S/o Late Munishamappa,
5563/16) Aged about 48 years.
Residing at No.23,
Billamaranahalli village,
Vidyanagara Post,
Jala Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru -562 157.
PETITIONERS : Smt.Shobha,
(in MVC W/o Poojappa @
5564/16) Chikkapoojappa,
Aged about 35 years.
Residing at :
No.36,
Billamaranahalli village,
Vidyanagara Post,
Jala Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru -562 157.
SCCH 1 4 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
PETITIONERS :
(in MVC Smt.Nagamma,
5565/16) W/o Thirumalappa,
Aged about 50 years.
Residing at No.5,
Billamaranahalli village,
Vidyanagara Post,
Jala Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru -562 157.
PETITIONERS : Sri. Poojappa @
(in MVC Chikkapoojappa,
5566/16) S/o Chikkamuniyappa,
Aged about 41 years.
Residing at No.36,
Billamaranahalli village,
Vidyanagara Post,
Jala Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru -562 157.
PETITIONERS : Smt.Muniyamma @
(in MVC Munemma,
5567/16) W/o Narasappa,
Aged about 60 years.
Residing at No.1,
Billamaranahalli village,
Vidyanagara Post,
Jala Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru -562 157.
(By Sri K.R.A. , Advocate)
- V/s -
SCCH 1 5 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
Respondents: 1. Sri.Kempegowda V.,
(in all cases) S/o Venugopal,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.10, Sathanuru
Village,
Bengaluru Post, Jala
Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru -562 149.
(By Sri B.L.D., Advocate )
Respondent 2. M/s.IFFCO Tokiyo,
No.2 General Insurance
Company
Limited,
No.41, Cristu Complex,
2nd Floor, Lavelle road,
Bengaluru -01.
(By Sri K.P., Advocate)
Respondent Sri.Challa Koti Reddy,
No.3 S/o Nagi Reddy,
Major in age,
R/at D.No.17-66/1,
Seetharamapuram,
Quary Road, Piduguralla,
Gunturu District.
Andhra Pradesh-522 413.
... Exparte
Respondent The National Insurance
No.4 Co.Ltd.,
Regional Office,
Shubharam Complex,
M.G.Road,
SCCH 1 6 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
Bengaluru -01.
(By Sri S.R.M., Advocate)
*******
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions are arising out of the one and same
accident and therefore, they are disposed off by this
common judgment.
2. The petitioners have filed these petitions under
Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989
seeking compensation for the death of their family
members and for the injuries sustained by them in the
road traffic accident.
3. Brief facts of the case are that:-
It is the case of the petitioners that on 15.03.2016 at
about 1.00 a.m., when the deceased persons and injured
persons were travelling in a Tempo Traveller bearing
No.KA-50-A-2754 to go to Tirupathi pilgrimage and when
SCCH 1 7 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
they reached near Chandragiri Fort turning, on
Puthalapattu Naidupeta NH-140, Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh, the driver of the said Tempo Traveller
driven the same in a rash and negligent manner at high
speed and he lost control over his vehicle and went to
wrong side of the road and dashed against the lorry
bearing No.AP-07-TF-0135 which was coming from
opposite direction. Due to the impact, the inmates of the
tempo traveler sustained grievous injuries and some of
them succumbed to the injuries.
4. It is the case of the petitioners in
M.V.C.No.5559/2016 that Kum.Mangala Gowri T. @
Gowramma, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot,
was hale and healthy and she was aged about 24 years at
the time of her death. She was a B.Com graduate and
she used to conduct tuitions and she had also done
Beautician course and was pursuing as a beautician at
her home and she was also attending marriage and other
functions for bridal make-up etc., and she used to earn
SCCH 1 8 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
Rs.25,000/p.m. The deceased was capable enough to
establish her own beauty parlour in near future and she
was also capable of getting job in any reputed MNC's and
she would have earned more than Rs.50,000/- p.m. The
petitioners were entirely depending upon the earnings of
the deceased. The petitioners are put to mental agony
and untold misery and they have spent more than
Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation of dead body and
funeral obsequies.
5. It is the case of the petitioners in
M.V.C.No.5560/2016 that Smt.Parvathamma, who
succumbed to the injuries on the spot, was hale and
healthy and she was aged about 40 years at the time of
her death. She was a tailor and was also a home maker
and she used to earn Rs.15,000/p.m. The petitioners
were entirely depending upon the earnings of the
deceased. The petitioners are put to mental agony and
untold misery and they have spent more than
SCCH 1 9 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation of dead body and
funeral obsequies.
6. It is the case of the petitioners in
M.V.C.No.5561/2016 that Smt.Sujatha, who succumbed
to the injuries on the spot, was hale and healthy and she
was aged about 37 years at the time of her death. She
was a home maker and earning a sum of Rs.8,500/-p.m.
and working as a tailor and earning Rs.10,000/p.m. In
near future the deceased would have become tailoring
batch supervisor in the above said company and she
would have earned Rs.30,000/p.m. The petitioners were
entirely depending upon the earnings of the deceased.
The petitioners are put to mental agony and untold
misery and they have spent more than Rs.1,00,000/-
towards transportation of dead body and funeral
obsequies.
7. It is the case of the petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5562/2016 that Sri.Suresh B.M., who
succumbed to the injuries on the spot, was hale and
SCCH 1 10 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
healthy and she was aged about 27 years at the time of
his death. He was working as Taxi driver under one
Narasimha of Billamaranahalli village and used to earn
Rs.20,000/p.m. Earlier the deceased had working as a
driver in reputed companies like Samaya New Channel,
Bhagirathi travels etc., and deceased was capable of
owning his own taxi and at that time he would have
earned more than Rs.50,000/- p.m. The petitioner is
entirely depending upon the earnings of the deceased.
The petitioner is put to mental agony and untold misery
and she has spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards
transportation of dead body and funeral obsequies.
8. It is the case of the petitioners in
M.V.C.No.5563/2016 that Smt.Ramya , who succumbed
to the injuries on the spot, was hale and healthy and she
was aged about 22 years at the time of her death. She
was working as a tailor and home maker and earning a
sum of Rs.20,000/p.m. In near future the deceased
would have earned more than Rs.30,000/p.m. and due to
SCCH 1 11 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
untimely death of the deceased the petitioner is put to lot
of mental agony and untold misery. The petitioners were
entirely depending upon the earnings of the deceased.
The petitioners have spent more than Rs.1,00,000/-
towards transportation of dead body and funeral
obsequies.
9. It is the case of the petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5564/2016 that she sustained grievous
injuries in the accident and immediately after the
accident she was shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G. hospital,
Tirupathi, wherein first aid treatment was given to her
and then shifted to Akash hospital, Devanahalli and she
was treated conservatively as inpatient and discharged
from the hospital after four days and petitioner took
follow up treatment as an out patient.
10. It is the case of the petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5565/2016 that she sustained grievous
injuries in the accident and immediately after the
accident she was shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G. hospital,
SCCH 1 12 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
Tirupathi, wherein first aid treatment was given to her
and then shifted to Akash hospital, Devanahalli and from
there she was shifted to N.R.V. hospital , Vidyanagar
cross, Bengaluru North and x-rays wre taken and
fracture of right tibial plate was notice and she was
treated conservatively as inpatient for a period of one
week and petitioner took follow up treatment as an out
patient.
11. It is the case of the petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5566/2016 that she sustained grievous
injuries in the accident and immediately after the
accident she was shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G. hospital,
Tirupathi, wherein first aid treatment was given to her
and then shifted to Akash hospital, Devanahalli and
during the course of treatment x-rays were taken which
revealed injuries over scalp, right ankle and over right
eyebrow and she was treated conservatively as inpatient
and discharged from the hospital after four days and
petitioner took treatment as an out patient.
SCCH 1 13 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
12. It is the case of the petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5567/2016 that she sustained grievous
injuries in the accident and immediately after the
accident she was shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G. hospital,
Tirupathi, wherein first aid treatment was given to her
and then shifted to Akash hospital, Devanahalli and
during the course of treatment x-rays were taken which
revealed petitioner has sustained fracture of both bones
of right forearm, multiple ribs fracture of left side,
fracture of nasal bone and petitioner underwent surgery
of open reduction and internal fixation with DCP for both
bones of right forearm on 22.3.2016. Nasal bone fracture
and ribs fracture were treated conservatively as inpatient
and discharged from the hospital on 28.3.2016 and
petitioner took treatment as an out patient.
13. It is the case of the petitioners in all the cases
that the accident was occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the drivers of the tempo traveler and
lorry and the first and second respondents being the
SCCH 1 14 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
owner and insurer of the tempo traveler and third and
fourth respondents are the owner and insurer of the lorry
are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
14. In pursuance of these claim petitions, this
Court has issued notices against the respondents.
Respondent No.3 in all the cases has been remained
absent and respondents No.1 , 2 and 3 have appeared
before the Court through their respective counsels and
have filed separate written statement.
15. The first respondent has filed written statement
denying the petition averments. This respondent has
denied the date, time and mode of accident, age ,
avocation and income of the petitioners/deceased ,
injuries sustained by the petitioners/deceased and the
injured have succumbed to the injuries, expenses
incurred by the petitioners, relationship of the deceased
with the petitioners. The compensation claimed by the
petitioners in all the cases is excessive and exorbitant.
Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
SCCH 1 15 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
16. The second respondent insurer of the tempo
traveler has filed written statement denying the petition
averments. This respondent admits the issuance of policy
and the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of
the policy. It is further contended that the first
respondent owner has not complied the statutory
obligation under section 134(c) of M.V.Act and the
concerned police have not complied the provisions of
section 158(6) of M.V.Act. It is further contended that the
second respondent reserves his right to amend its
statement of objection and also to take over the defence
of the insured in the event of the owner does not contest
the proceedings under section 170 of M.V.Act.
17. It is contended that the accident was occurred
due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing
No.AP-07-TF-0135 and not due to the negligence on the
part of the tempo traveler. The driver of the tempo
traveler was not possessing specific endorsement to drive
the alleged vehicle, further was not qualified for holding
SCCH 1 16 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
or obtaining such driving licence and further not satisfied
the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules 1989. The first respondent knowing fully well that
the driver did not possess valid and effective driving
licence and willfully entrusted the vehicle to the said
driver thereby the owner of the vehicle committed breach
of terms and conditions of the policy, hence, this
respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the
petitioners. It is further contended that the tempo
traveler was not having valid permit to ply in Andhra
Pradesh as on the date of accident and the vehicle was
carrying more than permitted seating capacity and
vehicle was used for stage carriage, therefore, has
contravened the proviso of the M.V.Act. The
compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and
exorbitant. hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
18. The insurer of the lorry being No. AP-07-TF-
0135 has filed written statement denying the petition
averments. This respondent does not admit the issuance
SCCH 1 17 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
of insurance policy to lorry bearing No. AP-07-TF-0135
and the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of
the policy. It is further contended that the third
respondent owner has not complied the statutory
obligation under section 134(c) of M.V.Act and the
concerned police have not complied the provisions of
section 158(6)of M.V.Act. It is further contended that
the fourth respondent reserves his right to amend its
statement of objection and also to take over the defence
of the insured in the event of the owner does not contest
the proceedings under section 170 of M.V.Act.
19. It is further contended that the 3rd respondent
knowing full well that driver was not having valid and
effective driving licence has allowed him to driver the
vehicle, which is violation of the terms and conditions of
the policy. This respondent has denied the date, time and
mode of accident, age , avocation and income of the
petitioners/deceased , injuries sustained by the
petitioners/deceased and the injured have succumbed to
SCCH 1 18 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
the injuries, expenses incurred by the petitioners,
relationship of the deceased with the petitioners.
20. It is further contended that the driver of the
tempo traveler is solely responsible for the accident. It is
contended that the jurisdictional police after thorough
investigation have filed charge sheet against the tempo
traveler bearing No. KA-50-A-2754 and no actionable
negligence can be attributed against the driver of the
lorry bearing No. AP-07-TF-0135. This respondent
reserved the right to file additional written statement
under the changed circumstances of the case. Hence,
prays to dismiss the petition.
21. Based on the pleadings this Court has framed
the following common issues in both the cases:-
ISSUES in M.V.C. No.5559 to 5563 /2016
1 Whether the Petitioners prove that the
deceased succumbed to injuries in a Motor
Vehicle Accident that occurred on 15.03.2016
at about 5.30 a.m, near Chandragiri Fort
SCCH 1 19 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
turning, on puthalapattu-Naidupeta NH-140
Road, Chandragiri Fort turning on
Puthalapattu Naidupeta NH-140 Road,
Chandragiri Mandalam, Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh, within the jurisdiction of
Chandragiri Police Station on account of rash
and negligent driving of the Tempo Traveller
bearing registration No.KA-50-A-2754 and
Lorry bearing Registration NO.AP-07-TF-0135
by its drivers?
2. Whether the Respondent No.2 proves that the
accident was occurred on account of negligent
act of driver of the lorry?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
4. What order?
ISSUES in M.V.C. No.5564 to 5567 /2016
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she
sustained grievous injuries in a Motor Vehicle
Accident that occurred on 15.03.2016 at about
5.30 a.m, near Chandragiri Fort Turning, on
Puthalapattu-Naidupeta NH-140 Road,
Chandragiri Mandalam, Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh, within the jurisdiction of
Chandragiri Police Station on account of rash
and negligent driving of the Tempo Traveller
bearing registration No.KA-50-A-2754 and
Lorry bearing registration NO.AP-07-TF-0135
by its drivers?
SCCH 1 20 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
2. Whether the Respondent No.2 proves that the
accident was occurred on account of negligent
act of driver of the lorry?
3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
4. What order?
22. In order to prove their cases, first petitioner in
M.V.C. No.5559/16 is examined as PW1, The first
petitioner in M.V.C.No.5560/16 is examined as PW-2, the
first petitioner in M.V.C.No.5561/16 is examined as PW-
3, the first petitioner in M.V.C.No.5562/16 is examined
as PW-4, the petitioner in M.V.C.No.5564/16 is examined
as PW-5, the petitioner in M.V.C.No.5565/16 is examined
as PW-6, petitioner in M.V.C.No.5567 is examined as PW-
7 and she has examined the Medical record technician
and doctor as PW-8 and PW-9 and they have got marked
documents Ex.P.1 to P.83. The respondents have
examined four witnesses as RW-1 to 4 and they have got
marked the documents Ex.R.1 to R.5.
SCCH 1 21 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
23. I heard the arguments of petitioner Counsel,,
respondent No.2 counsel and he has filed Memo with
citation. Respondent No.4 counsel has filed written
arguments. I also heard the arguments of respondent
No.5 counsel. The respondent No.4 has filed the following
citations:
1. 2006 ACJ 1778
2. MFA 32143/2011(DB)
3. MANU/SC/1029/2006
4. MANU/KA/0515/2003
24. Having heard and perused the arguments,
based on the pleadings and the evidence available on
record, I record my findings on the above issues as
under:-
1) Issue No.1( in all the cases )... partly in the Affirmative
2) Issue No.2( in all the cases )... In the negative
3) Issue No.3 (in all the cases) ... Partly in the Affirmative,
4) Issue No.4( in all the cases )... As per final order
for the following:-
SCCH 1 22 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
REASONS
25. Issue No.1 and 2 ( in all the cases): These two
issues in all the cases have been taken up together for
discussions, in order to avoid repetitions.
The petitioners in all the cases have contended that
on 15.03.2016 at about 1.00 a.m., when the deceased
persons and injured persons were travelling in a Tempo
Traveller bearing No.KA-50-A-2754 to go to Tirupathi
pilgrimage and when they reached near Chandragiri Fort
turning, on Puthalapattu Naidupeta NH-140, Chittoor
District, Andhra Pradesh, the driver of the said Tempo
Traveller driven the same in a rash and negligent manner
at high speed and he lost control over his vehicle and
went to wrong side of the road and dashed against the
lorry bearing No.AP-07-TF-0135 which was coming from
opposite direction. Due to the impact, the inmates of the
tempo traveler sustained grievous injuries and some of
them succumbed to the injuries.
SCCH 1 23 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
26. The petitioners in all the cases, they have
alleged that the accident was on account of the rash and
negligent driving of the tempo traveler and also the lorry.
The petitioners in their respective evidence they
reiterated the averments of the petition in their affidavit
evidence. PW-1 apart from the oral evidence she has
relied upon the FIR, mahazar, sketch, Accident
inspection report as Ex.P.1 to 4 and also got marked the
translated copy as Ex.P.1(a) to P.4(a). PW -1 was
subjected to cross-examination and in the cross-
examination it is elicited that they have left
Billamaranahalli in the night and the accident was
occurred at 5.00 a.m. and she was sitting in the 3rd row
behind the driver. Further admits that at the time of
accident they were sleeping, after hearing the accident
sound, they came to know about the accident. It is
suggested that the accident was occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the lorry and not tempo
traveler and the said suggestion was denied. Further she
SCCH 1 24 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
says that she does not know the lorry came in the wrong
side as per the IMV report and the complaint was given
by one Madhu, who is the resident of her village. It si
elicited by the respondent No.4 counsel that the driver of
the tempo Kiran was proceeding in high speed and she
volunteers that she advised him not to drive the vehicle
in high speed. Further she says that she does not know
about accident was occurred solely on account of
negligence of the driver of the tempo and not on the
negligence of the driver of the lorry.
27. PW-2 is not an eye witness. He categorically
admits that he has not witnessed the accident. PW-3 and
4 have also not witnessed the accident. PW-5, in the
cross-examination, also reiterates the evidence of PW-1
stating that the accident was occurred at 5.00 a.m. and
she was sleeping and she cannot tell on whose negligence
the accident was occurred. PW-6, in the cross-
examination admits that he was sitting alone in the last
seat and accident was occurred at 5.00 a.m. and as he
SCCH 1 25 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
was sleeping he is unable to tell on whose negligence the
accident was occurred. PW-7 also reiterates the same.
28. The second respondent also examined the
witness as RW-1 and he says the averments of the
petition clearly discloses that the driver of the lorry drove
the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. In the cross-
examination, he admits that charge sheet has been filed
against the driver of the tempo. It is suggested that no
police documents supports his contention that the
accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver
of the lorry and the said suggestion was denied. It is
elicited that in the petition an allegation is made against
the driver of the tempo traveler. It is suggested that in
the Police records an allegation is made against the driver
of the tempo traveler and the said suggestion was denied.
Witness says that only partial allegation is made against
the tempo traveler. Again says in the charge sheet an
allegation is made against the insured driver but claims
SCCH 1 26 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
that he is giving evidence based on the sketch that the
partial negligence is only against the driver of the tempo
traveler. It is suggested that the driver of the lorry was
proceeding on the left side of the road and the accident
was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the
tempo traveler and the said suggestion was denied. It is
elicited that in the Police records no where it is
mentioned that the lorry came in the wrong side and he
does not know who gave the complaint. Further admits
that complainant is the occupant of the tempo traveler
and he made allegation against the driver of the tempo
traveler and in the charge sheet also the allegation is
made against the tempo traveler.
29. The 4th respondent also examined a witness as
RW-2 and he contends that the material placed before
the Court informs that the driver of the tempo traveler
has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner
and driver of the lorry was proceeding on the proper side
SCCH 1 27 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
and the tempo traveler driver came and dashed against
the lorry. The RW-2 was subjected to cross-examination.
He admits that he has not witnessed the accident and he
is giving evidence based on the records and the PW-2 has
seen the copy of the complaint and charge sheet. He
admits in the complaint it is alleged that the tempo came
in the opposite direction and dashed against the lorry.
The witness volunteers that while dashing the lorry came
to wrong side. It is elicited that as per IMV report, the
front portions of both the vehicles were damaged. It is
suggested that taking advantage of death of driver of the
tempo, an abated charge sheet has been filed against the
driver of the tempo and the said suggestion is denied. He
has no objection to examine the driver of the lorry.
30. The driver of the lorry has been examined as
RW-4. In the evidence he says that the was proceeding
from Tirupathi to Chittor on the left side of the road and
tempo traveler which came in the opposite direction and
SCCH 1 28 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
the driver was sleeping and came to right side and
dashed against their vehicle. The Police have shifted his
vehicle on the other end of the road in order to clear the
traffic as shown in the sketch Ex.P.3. He says the
accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver
of the tempo traveler who has driven the vehicle in a
sleeping mood. In the cross-examination, he admits that
the lorry was loaded at around 7.30 p.m. at Guntur and
the distance between the place of loading of vehicle and
the accident spot is around 480 k.m.s., and the accident
occurred between 5.30 to 6.00 a.m. and the accident
road is high way. It is elicited that he saw the driver of
the tempo traveler at the distance of 50 feet since there
was a curve road and there is a fort. There was no any
street light near the place of accident. The police might
have shifted his vehicle to other direction in order to clear
the traffic and hence, the same is facing towards the
East. It is suggested that the accident was occurred due
his negligence and the said suggestion was denied.
SCCH 1 29 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
31.The counsel appearing for the respondent No.2
in his arguments, he vehemently contended that both the
vehicle drivers have caused the accident, spot sketch and
AIR report which is marked at Ex.P.3 and 4 discloses
the place of accident. Witness in their cross examination
have admitted that they were sleeping only after hearing
the sound they have come to know about the accident.
The width of the road is 33 feet and accident was
occurred in the middle of the road and the driver of the
lorry has given the evidence that the distance between
the place of loading of vehicle and the accident spot is
around 480 kms. Hence, it is clear that the accident is on
account of the contributory negligence. IMV report
discloses that both the vehicles front portion is damaged.
It is clear case of collision between the two vehicles.
32. The counsel appearing for the respondent No.4
in his written arguments has contended that the driver of
the tempo has driver the vehicle in a rash and negligent
SCCH 1 30 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
manner and no actionable negligence can be attributed
against the driver of the lorry. The driver who has been
examined before the Court as RW-4 has categorically
deposed that the driver of the tempo came to wrong side
and dashed against his lorry and nothing is elicited from
the mouth of RW-4 regarding negligence on his part. The
police documents clearly shows that the driver of the
tempo traveler has driven the vehicle in rash and
negligent manner and the admission elicited from the
mouth of the witnesses, it is clear that no where in the
police documents, it is mentioned that the accident is on
account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the
lorry.
33.The petitioner counsel in his argument, he
vehemently contended that the accident is taken place on
account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the
tempo and driver of the lorry also contributed negligence
towards the occurrence of the accident.
SCCH 1 31 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
34. The counsel appearing for the respondent No.2
has relied upon the judgment reported in 2006 ACJ
1778 ( New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Venkataramana
and others) and contended that head on collision
between two vehicles resulting in death of a passenger
and claimants averred in their pleadings that driver of
tanker alone was negligent and the Appellate Court by
considering the oral and documentary evidence held that
both the vehicles were equally negligent and it is held
that the opinion of the claimants does not bind the
Court. Court has to look into the evidence in toto.
35. The petitioner Counsel further relied upon the
unreported judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
in M.F.A. No.32143/2011 by relying upon its judgment
he brought to my notice that the Tribunal is justified in
coming to the conclusion that the deceased has
contributed to the extent of 50%, bigger the vehicle,
larger is the responsibility. In the absence of evidence of
eye witness the Court has to look into the other records
SCCH 1 32 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
and will have to assess for coming to correct conclusion.
The very fact that the right side bumper of the lorry was
damaged itself clearly reveals that there was a head on
collusion between two vehicles.
36. The counsel also relied upon the judgment
passed in Civil Appeal Nos.3731-3732/2002( Bijoy
Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and others) and
brought to my notice contributory negligence, two
vehicles having head on collision -Drivers of both
vehicles should be held responsible to have contributed
equally to accident. It is further observed that two
vehicles having head on collision- drivers of both vehicles
should be held responsible to have contributed equally to
the accident.
37. It is further observed that when the vehicles
had a head on collision , the drivers of both the vehicles
should be held responsible to have contributed equally to
the accident.
SCCH 1 33 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
38. The counsel in his argument vehemently
contended by relying upon the judgment, the Court has
to take note of the fact of head on collision between the
two vehicles.
39. In keeping the contentions urged by both the
counsels and by considering the oral and documentary
evidence, this Court has to appreciate regarding
negligence is concerned. It is emerged in the evidence of
witnesses that at the time of accident they were sleeping
and accident was taken place at 5.00 a.m. and they left
their village in the night, 13 persons were proceeding in
the vehicle and accident was taken place at 5.00 a.m.
The petitioners have relied upon the sketch which is
marked at Ex.P.3, it is clear that the tempo got turtle and
the lorry was parked on the other end of the road and the
driver of the lorry, who has been examined as RW-4,
says in order to clear the traffic, the lorry was taken to
other side of the road. The accident spot clearly discloses
that the tempo traveler came to the wrong side and
SCCH 1 34 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
dashed against the lorry which was proceeding on its left
direction. No doubt the petitioners have relied upon the
AIR report which is marked at Ex.P.4 and it discloses the
victim vehicle is lying in its normal position facing
towards East. IMV Inspector has opined that the accident
occurred not due to any mechanic defect of the vehicle.
From Ex.P.4 AIR it is clear that the vehicle was
completely damaged including steering system, braking
system, suspension system, electrical system, cooling
system, body , seats, front right side tyre busted due to
accident. Hence, it is clear that due to the impact the
vehicle has sustained more damages. The Police after
investigation have filed charge sheet against the driver of
the tempo, who died on the spot and abated charge sheet
is filed. In the cross-examination of RW-4, except
suggesting that the accident was occurred due to his
negligent act , nothing is elicited form the mouth of RW4,
driver of the lorry. No doubt, both the vehicles have
sustained damages in the accident as it is a head on
SCCH 1 35 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
collision. In the cross-examination of the witnesses the
sketch has not been disputed. I have already pointed out
that the sketch clearly discloses that the driver of the
tempo went to wrong side and dashed against the driver
of the lorry which was proceeding on its direction, due to
the impact the tempo traveler got turtle that itself shows
that the driver of the tempo has driven the same in a
rash and negligent manner and things itself speaks how
an accident occurred i.e, res ipsa loquitur applicable to
the case on hand. The witness who have been examined
before the Court, those were the occupants of the tempo
traveler and they have specifically deposed that the driver
of the tempo traveler has driven the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner. PW-1 categorically says that she has
advised the driver to proceed in a slow manner and
inspite of it he has driven the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and hit the lorry. Hence, the judgments
referred by the respondent No.2 counsel is not applicable
to the case on hand. There is no cogent evidence in order
SCCH 1 36 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
to come to the conclusion of contributory negligence on
the part of the driver of the lorry. Since he was
proceeding on his direction on the left side of the road
and the sketch which is marked at Ex.P.3 clearly depicts
the place of accident. Hence, it is clear that the accident
is on account of the sole negligence on the part the tempo
traveler. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in all the cases
partly in the affirmative and issue No.2 in all the cases in
the negative.
40. Issue No.3 ( in M.V.C. No.5559/2016) : It is the
case of the petitioners that they are the parents of the
deceased. The petitioners have produced original S.S.L.C
marks card and PUC marks card of the deceased which
discloses the mother's name as Nagamma and father's
name as Thirumalappa. Hence, the relationship of the
deceased with the petitioners is proved.
41. It is the case of the petitioner deceased was aged
about 24 years and she was a beautician and also was
SCCH 1 37 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
working as teacher and was also taking tuitions and
earning Rs.25,000/p.m. and she used to contribute her
income towards the maintenance of the family. In the
cross-examination, it is suggested that the documents
Ex.P.15 to 20 are created. It is suggested that she is
falsely deposing before the Court that her daughter was
earning Rs.50,000/p.m. and the said suggestion was
denied. Ex.P.14 is the transfer certificate of the deceased.
Ex.P.15 is the SSLC marks card , Ex.P.16 is PUC marks
card , Ex.P.17 is Madhyama Examination certificate,
Ex.P.18 is degree certificates, Ex.P.19 10 days Beautician
Course certificate, Ex.P.20 is another certificate. The
petitioners have not produced any documents regarding
the salary of the deceased. In the absence of
documentary proof , this Court has to taken the income
of the deceased as Rs.7,000/p.m. as the accident is of
the year 2016.
42. It is important to note that in the recent
judgment reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 (SC)( Amrit Bhanu
SCCH 1 38 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
Shali and others Vs. National Insurance company Ltd.
And others) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
Quantum - fatal accident -principles
of assessment-multiplier-choice of -
deceased aged 26 and claimants are
father , mother and sister who got
married during pendency of claim
application -Tribunal adopted
multiplier of 17-High Court reduced
multiplier to 13 -whether multiplier
of 17 based on the age of the
deceased be applied -Held:yes, the
age of dependants has no nexus with
the computation of compensation .
Also in the recent judgment reported in 2015 AIR
SCW 3105 (Munna Lal Jain and another Vs.Vipin Kumar
Sharma and others)
"Compensation - Computation of -
Deduction towards personal and living
expenses - No exceptional circumstances or
compelling reasons for deviation on basis of
evidence - Deceased being of the age of 30
years - Deduction of 50% towards personal
and living expenses is proper."
"Compensation of - Multiplier - Depend
on age of deceased alone - Age of deceased
SCCH 1 39 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
was between 26 to 30 years at the time of
accident - Proper multiplier is 17"
As per the above referred judgments in this case
also, I have taken the age of the deceased, to arrive the
proper multiplier.
43. It is contended that as on the date of the
accident the deceased was aged about 24 years. The
petitioners have produced T,C., S.S.L.C. marks card, PUC
marks card which discloses the date of birth of the
deceased as 11.06.1992, i.e., 24 years as on the date of
accident. As per the table for the age group of 15 to 20
and 20 to 25 years the multiplier applicable is 18 years
and the appropriate multiplier is 18.
44. In the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403
(Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held
that, even if a person is self employed, loss of future
prospects has to be taken into consideration to the extent
of 50% of actual income (after deduction of tax) for
SCCH 1 40 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
persons below 40 years; 30% for age group of 40 to 50
years; 15% for age group of 50 to 60 years; but no
addition thereafter.
45. As per the principles laid down in the above
judgment reported in the petitioner is entitled for 50%
towards loss of future prospects and it works out to
Rs.3,500/- and thus the total works out to Rs.10,500/-
p.m.
46. The deceased was bachelor at the time of
accident, hence, 50% of her income has to be deducted
towards her personal expenses. It works out to be
Rs.5,250/-p.m. (10,500-5250) . Then the annual
income is Rs.63,000/-. (5,250x12). The proper multiplier
applicable is 18 and if we multiply the annual income of
the deceased by the multiplier, the same works out to
Rs.11,34,000/- (63,000x18), to which the petitioner is
entitled to under the head loss of dependency on account
SCCH 1 41 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
of death of her daughter in the accident. Hence, I award a
sum of Rs.11,34,000/- towards loss of dependency.
47. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013
ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad
Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent
judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706
(Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/-
as compensation to the family members (children and
family members other than wife) for loss of love and
affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc.,
and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widow of the
deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and
sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection,
social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost
incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In
this case also, since the deceased has left behind his
mother , I deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- as
compensation for loss of love and affection, deprivation of
SCCH 1 42 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards
cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
48.The details of compensation I propose to award are
as under:
Sl.No Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
.
1 Loss of dependency 11,34,000-00
2 Compensation to the family 1,00,000-00
members (children and
family members other than
wife) for loss of love and
affection, deprivation of
protection, social security
etc.
3 Cost incurred on account of 10,000-00
funeral and ritual expenses
Total 12,44,000-00
Hence, the petitioners in M.V.C.No.5559/2016 is
entitled for the total compensation of Rs.12,44,000/-
towards compensation.
49. Issue No.3(in 5560/2016):- It is the case of the
petitioners that they are the husband and son of the
deceased and they were fully depending on her for their
SCCH 1 43 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
livelihood. Petitioners have produced notarized copy of
election identity card which discloses her husband's
name as Narayan swamy. Ex.P.35 the notarized copy of
SSLC marks card of Ramya N., daughter of the deceased
Parvathamma who is also succumbed to the injuries in
the accident discloses her parents name as Narayana
swamy B.M. and Parvathamma. Hence, the relationship
of the petitioners with the deceased is proved.
50. It has to be noted that the son of the deceased is
major aged about 20 years. The petitioners have
produced the notarized copy of election identity card of
the second petitioner at Ex.P.33 which discloses his date
of birth as 17.09.1996 i.e., 21 years as on today. Hence,
he is not considered as dependant of the deceased.
51. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased
was earning Rs.15,000/p.m. by working as tailor and
home maker and she was contributing the same towards
the maintenance of the family. Due to untimely death of
the deceased the petitioners were put to mental shock
SCCH 1 44 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
and agony. Petitioner No.1 has spent Rs.1,00,000/-
towards funeral and obsequies ceremony. The petitioners
have not produced any documents to show that the
deceased was working as tailor. He admits in the inquest
it is mentioned as his wife is house wife but he claims
that his wife was doing tailoring job. It is suggested that
she is falsely deposing before the Court that his wife was
earning Rs.15,000/p.m. and the said suggestion was
denied. In the absence of documentary evidence, this
Court has to take the income of the deceased at
Rs.7,000/p.m. as the accident is of the year 2016.
52. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased
was aged about 40 years. In support of their claim
petitioners have produced notarized copy of election
identity card and aadhar card. In the notarized copy of
election identity card which is marked at Ex.P.27 the
date of birth of the deceased is shown as 03.04.1974, in
the Aadhar card which is marked at Ex.P.28 the year of
birth of the deceased is mentioned as 1972.In the Inquest
SCCH 1 45 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
report and P.M. Certificate, the age of the deceased is
mentioned as 38 years. It has to be noted that the year of
birth of the deceased is mentioned in election identity
card as 1974 and in Aadhar card as 1972. Hence, the
year of birth of the deceased mentioned in the Aadhar
card is taken into consideration and the age of the
deceased as on the date of accident is 44 years and the
multiplier for the age group between 41-45 years is 14.
53. In the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403
(Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held
that, even if a person is self employed, loss of future
prospects has to be taken into consideration to the extent
of 50% of actual income (after deduction of tax) for
persons below 40 years; 30% for age group of 40 to 50
years; 15% for age group of 50 to 60 years; but no
addition thereafter.
54. As per the above referred judgment the loss of
future prospects has to be taken into consideration and
SCCH 1 46 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
hence, as the deceased was aged 44 years at the time of
accident, 30% of the income has to be added to the
monthly income of the deceased i.e., Rs.7,000/- and 30%
of Rs.7,000/- comes to Rs.2,100/- towards loss of future
prospects. It comes to Rs.9,100/-. (7,000+2,100/-).
There are two dependants . Hence, 1/3rd of the income of
the deceased is to be deducted for personal expenses
i.e., Rs.3,033/-. It comes to Rs.6,067/-. (7,000-3,033/-).
Thus, the annual loss of dependency works out to
Rs.72,804/-. The relevant multiplier applicable to the
case on hand would be 14. If we multiply the annual
income of the deceased with the 14 multiplier, it works
out to Rs.10,19,256/-, to which the petitioners are
entitled to under the head loss of dependency.
55. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013
ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad
Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent
judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706
SCCH 1 47 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
(Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/-
as compensation to the family members (children and
family members other than wife) for loss of love and
affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc.,
and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widow of the
deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and
sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection,
social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost
incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
56. In this case also, since the deceased has left
behind husband and son, I deem it proper to award
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members
(children and family members other than wife) for loss of
love and affection, deprivation of protection, social
security etc., and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the
widow of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains
and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of
protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards
cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
SCCH 1 48 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
57. .The details of compensation I propose to award
are as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
1 Loss of dependency 10,19,256-00
2 Compensation to the family 1,00,000-00
members (children and family
members other than wife) for loss of
love and affection, deprivation of
protection, social security etc.
3 Compensation to the widow of the 50,000-00
deceased for loss of love and
affection, pains and sufferings, loss
of consortium, deprivation of
protection , social security etc.
4 Cost incurred on account of funeral 10,000-00
and ritual expenses
Total 11,79,256-00
The petitioner No.1 in M.V.C.No.5560/2016 is
entitled for compensation of Rs.11,79,256/- and out of it,
petitioner No.2 is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- awarded
under the head loss of love and affection.
58.ISSUE NO.3( M.V.C. No.5561/2016) : It is the
case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the
husband, petitioner No.2 and 3 are the minor children of
SCCH 1 49 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
the deceased. In order to prove the same petitioners have
produced notarized copy of ration card at Ex.P.39 which
discloses that deceased name as wife of
Srinivasa.Ex.P.42 aadhar card of petitioner No.2
Amrutha , wherein it is stated that she is the daughter of
Srinivasa, Ex.P.43 is the aadhar card of son of the
deceased, wherein it is stated that he is the son of
Srinivasa. Petitioner No.1 also produced Affidavit of
genealogical tree. Hence, the relationship is proved.
59. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased
aged about 37 year at the time of accident and prior to
the date of accident she was hale and healthy and was
working as tailor at Venkateshwara Clothing Company,
Yelahanka, Bengaluru and she was earning a sum of
Rs.8,500/p.m. It is the further contention of the
petitioners that she would have earned Rs.30,000/p.m.
in the near future if she was alive. It is the contention of
the petitioners that they all were depending on the
income of the deceased and they have lost their care
SCCH 1 50 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
taker. In order to prove that the petitioner was drawing
salary of Rs.8,500/p.m. they have produced pay slip of
deceased Sujatha S. at Ex.P.76. It discloses that
deceased Sujatha joined for work on 16.11.2009 , her
token No.15230, designation is mentioned as Tailor-A.
Hence, it can be held that the deceased was working as
tailor in the Venkateshwara Clothing Company and
earning Rs.8,164/p.m.
60. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased
was aged about 37 years as on the date of accident. In
order to prove the same petitioners have produced
notarized copy of Aadhar card which discloses her year of
birth as 1979. In the ration card it is mentioned as 35
years but no date of issue is seen. In the P.M.Report age
of the deceased is mentioned as 36 years, in the Inquest
report age of the deceased is mentioned as 40 years. In
all the documents her age varies from 36 to 40 years. As I
have already pointed out in the notarized copy of aadhar
card year of birth is mentioned as 1979, hence, deceased
SCCH 1 51 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
was aged about 37 years as on the date of accident and
the multiplier applicable for the age group between 36-40
years is 15.
61. In the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403
(Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held
that, even if a person is self employed, loss of future
prospects has to be taken into consideration to the extent
of 50% of actual income (after deduction of tax) for
persons below 40 years; 30% for age group of 40 to 50
years; 15% for age group of 50 to 60 years; but no
addition thereafter.
62. As per the above referred judgment the loss of
future prospects has to be taken into consideration and
hence, as the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of
accident, 30% of the income has to be added to the
monthly income of the deceased i.e., Rs.8,164/- and 30%
of it comes to Rs.2,450/- towards loss of future
prospects. It comes to Rs.10,614/-. (8,164+2,450/-).
SCCH 1 52 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
There are three dependants . Hence, 1/3rd of the income
of the deceased is to be deducted for personal expenses
i.e., Rs.3,538/-. It comes to Rs.7,076/-(10,614-3,538/-).
Thus, the annual loss of dependency works out to
Rs.84,912/-. The relevant multiplier applicable to the
case on hand would be 15. If we multiply the annual
income of the deceased with the 15 multiplier, it works
out to Rs.12,73,680/-, to which the petitioners are
entitled to under the head loss of dependency.
63. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013
ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad
Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent
judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706
(Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/-
as compensation to the family members (children and
family members other than wife) for loss of love and
affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc.,
and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widower of the
SCCH 1 53 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and
sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection,
social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost
incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In
this case also, since the deceased has left behind
husband , minor daughter and son, I deem it proper to
award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family
members (children and family members other than wife)
for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection,
social security etc., and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to
the widow of the deceased for loss of love and affection,
pains and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of
protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards
cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
64.The details of compensation, I propose to award
are as under:
Sl.No Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
.
1 Loss of dependency 12,73,680-00
2 Compensation to the family 1,00,000-00
members (children and
family members other than
SCCH 1 54 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
wife) for loss of love and
affection, deprivation of
protection, social security
etc.
3 Compensation to the widow 50,000-00
of the deceased for loss of
love and affection, pains
and sufferings, loss of
consortium, deprivation of
protection , social security
etc.
4 Cost incurred on account of 10,000-00
funeral and ritual expenses
Total 14,33,680-00
The petitioners in M.V.C.No.5561/2016 are entitled
for the compensation of Rs.14,33,680/-.
65. Issue No.3( in M.V.C. No.5562/2016) :- The
petitioner is the mother of the deceased. She is a widow
and she was fully depending on the income of the
deceased. It is the case of the petitioner that her son was
working as taxi driver under one Narasimha of
Billamaranahalli village and used to earn Rs.20,000/p.m.
Earlier her deceased son had worked as a driver in
reputed companies like Samaya News Channel,
SCCH 1 55 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
Bhagirathi Travels. It is the contention of the petitioner
that in near future her would have earned more than
Rs.50,000/-p.m. and he was capable of owning his own
taxi. This petitioner has produced genealogical tree
affidavit to show her relationship with the deceased.
66. It is the case of the petitioner that deceased was
working as taxi driver. In order to prove the same
petitioner has produced Ex.P.47 history Sheet for drivers.
It discloses the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned
as 04.08.1989. The driving licence was valid from
16.02.2016 to 15.02.2019, hence, as on the date of
accident driving licence was valid and the deceased had
valid driving licence to drive Transport vehicle MHMV
(Rigid Chassis)-goods, Transport vehicle -MHMV (Rigid
Chasis) public SE -LMV-NT-CAR, motor cycle with gear
(Non-transport). There is an endorsement stating that
authorization to drive transport vehicle. Ex.P.48 is the
identity card of the deceased to show that he had worked
in Samaya News channel. Ex.P.49 is the driving licence of
SCCH 1 56 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
the deceased. Ex.P.50 is the notarized copy of election
identity card , Ex.P.51 is the election identity card of the
petitioner. She has also produced affidavit genealogical
tree to prove the relationship of the petitioner with the
deceased. All these documents prove the date of birth of
the deceased as 04.08.1989 i.e, deceased was 27 years as
on the date of accident and as on the date of accident
deceased was working as driver.
67. It is important to note that in the recent
judgment reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 (SC)( Amrit Bhanu
Shali and others Vs. National Insurance company Ltd.
And others) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
Quantum - fatal accident -principles
of assessment-multiplier-choice of -
deceased aged 26 and claimants are
father , mother and sister who got
married during pendency of claim
application -Tribunal adopted
multiplier of 17-High Court reduced
multiplier to 13 -whether multiplier
of 17 based on the age of the
deceased be applied -Held:yes, the
age of dependants has no nexus with
the computation of compensation .
SCCH 1 57 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
Also in the recent judgment reported in 2015 AIR
SCW 3105 (Munna Lal Jain and another Vs.Vipin Kumar
Sharma and others)
"Compensation - Computation of -
Deduction towards personal and living
expenses - No exceptional circumstances or
compelling reasons for deviation on basis of
evidence - Deceased being of the age of 30
years - Deduction of 50% towards personal
and living expenses is proper."
"Compensation of - Multiplier - Depend
on age of deceased alone - Age of deceased
was between 26 to 30 years at the time of
accident - Proper multiplier is 17"
68. As per the above referred judgments in this case
also, I have taken the age of the deceased, to arrive the
proper multiplier. As I have discussed above, the
deceased was 27 years as on the date of accident and the
appropriate multiplier is 17.
SCCH 1 58 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
69. It is the case of the petitioner that deceased was
working as driver at the time of accident and he was
getting salary of Rs.20,000/p.m. In the evidence PW-1
has stated that at present deceased was working as taxi
driver under one Narasimha of Billamaranahalli village
and earning Rs.20,000/p.m. She also stated that earlier
her son had worked as driver in reputed companies like
Samaya News Channel, Bhagirathi travels etc. In order to
prove the same she has produced Ex.P.48 notarised copy
of employer identity card of Samaya News channel,
Ex.P.77 appointment letter which discloses he was paid
Rs.10,000/p.m. In the evidence of PW-4 it is suggested
that her son was not working as taxi driver with one
Narasimha and earning Rs.20,000/p.m. and the said
suggestion was denied. It is further suggested that
Ex.P.77 is created and produced and the same was
denied. It has to be noted that the deceased was earlier
working with Samaya channel and now as per the
evidence of PW-4 deceased was working under one
SCCH 1 59 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
Narasimha and he was getting Rs.20,000/p.m. In order
to prove the same petitioner has not produced any
documentary evidence. The petitioner has produced his
driving licence at Ex.P.47 and it discloses that the
deceased had valid driving licence to drive Transport
vehicle MHMV (Rigid Chassis)-goods, Transport vehicle -
MHMV (Rigid Chasis) public SE -LMV-NT-CAR, motor
cycle with gear (Non-transport). There is an endorsement
stating that authorization to drive transport vehicle.
Hence, it is accepted that the deceased was a driver as on
the date of the accident.
70. This Tribunal would like to refer the judgment
reported in 2016(1) AKR 39 (Peter Vs. Haifa and
another) wherein it is held that :
Compensation -Accident due to rash
and negligent driving of driver of offending
vehicle-claimant, a mason earning Rs.300/-
per day aged about 40 years at time of
accident -Notional income of claimant
assessed at Rs.9,000/per month-Multiplier of
15 applied.
SCCH 1 60 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
As per the above referred judgment the driver job is
also a skilled job, hence, this Tribunal would like to take
the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/p.m.
71. In the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403
(Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held
that, even if a person is self employed, loss of future
prospects has to be taken into consideration to the extent
of 50% of actual income (after deduction of tax) for
persons below 40 years; 30% for age group of 40 to 50
years; 15% for age group of 50 to 60 years; but no
addition thereafter.
72. As per the principles laid down in the above
judgment reported in the petitioner is entitled for 50%
towards loss of future prospects and it works out to
Rs.4,500/- and thus the total works out to Rs.13,500/-
p.m.
SCCH 1 61 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
73. The deceased was bachelor at the time of
accident, hence, 50% of his income has to be deducted
towards his personal expenses. It works out to be
Rs.6,750/-p.m. (13,500-6,750). His annual income
comes to Rs.81,000/-. (6,750x12). The proper multiplier
applicable is 17 and if we multiply the annual income of
the deceased by the multiplier, the same works out to
Rs.13,77,000/- (81,000x17), to which the petitioner is
entitled to under the head loss of dependency on account
of death of her son in the accident. Hence, I award a sum
of Rs.13,77,000/- towards loss of dependency.
74. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013
ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad
Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent
judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706
(Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/-
as compensation to the family members (children and
family members other than wife) for loss of love and
affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc.,
SCCH 1 62 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widow of the
deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and
sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection,
social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost
incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In
this case also, since the deceased has left behind his
mother , I deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- as
compensation for loss of love and affection, deprivation of
protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards
cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
75.The details of compensation I propose to award are
as under:
Sl.No Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
.
1 Loss of dependency 13,77,000-00
2 Compensation to the family 1,00,000-00
members (children and
family members other than
wife) for loss of love and
affection, deprivation of
protection, social security
etc.
SCCH 1 63 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
3 Cost incurred on account of 10,000-00
funeral and ritual expenses
Total 14,87,000-00
Hence, the petitioners in M.V.C.No.5562/2016 is
entitled for the total compensation of Rs.14,87,000/-
towards compensation.
76. ISSUE NO.3( M.V.C. No.5563/2016) : It is the
case of the petitioner that he is the father of the
deceased. In the evidence he has contended that his
daughter was married to respondent No.4 herein and she
died issueless. His deceased daughter was contributing
part of her earnings to himself and his wife. He is also
legal representative of deceased daughter and he is
entitled for compensation. In order to prove their
relationship petitioner has produced Ex.P.35 SSLC
marks card of Ramya which discloses parents name as
Parvathamma and Narayanaswamy. The respondent No.5
has produced Ex.R.2 notarised copy of Aadhar card,
Ex.R.3 notarised copy of ration card, Ex.R.4 notarised
SCCH 1 64 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
copy of election identity card of deceased. In all these
documents husband name is mentioned as
Radhakrishna. Hence, relationship of petitioner and
respondent No.5 with the deceased is proved. PW-2
father of the deceased was subjected to cross-
examination. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that
his daughter was married in 2012 and her husband is an
Advocate. He admits his daughter was staying along with
her husband after her marriage. It is admitted that her
husband had given the statement at the time of the
inquest. He further admits that in the inquest, it is
mentioned as house wife but he claims that she was also
doing tailoring job. It is suggested that he is falsely
deposing before the Court that his daughter was earning
Rs.20,000/p.m. and the said suggestion was denied. It is
suggested that he is falsely deposing before the Court
that he was depending on the income of his daughter and
the said suggestion was denied. He was further cross-
examined by respondent NO.5 Advocate. In the cross-
SCCH 1 65 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
examination, he says his daughter was married 5 years
ago. He admits that they were cordial and they were
visiting his house also. He admits his daughter had come
to their house to attend the festival and went to temple
along with his wife in the tempo traveler .
77. The husband of the deceased is examined as
RW-3 and in the cross-examination he says he is a
practicing Advocate. His marriage was solemnized with
Ramya on 14.06.2012 and his wife was working as
beautician at Gagana Beauty parlour in doddaballapura
and his wife is his sister's daughter. He admits they are
in cordial with each of the family. His wife and his sister
cum Mother-in-law were cremated in the village of
Billamaranahhali and she has no issues. It is suggested
that his wife was also helping her parents and the said
suggestion was denied. It is suggested that his parent-in-
laws were not having any income and hence, she was
helping her parents and the same was denied. He was
cross-examined by Advocate for respondent No.2. He
SCCH 1 66 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
admits he gave the statement before the Police and after
postmortem, the body was handed over to him and in the
inquest it is mentioned as house wife. He further admits
that he has not produced any document to show that his
wife was working as beautician and earning
Rs.20,000/p.m. He admits he has not produced any
document to show the same. It is suggested that he is
falsely deposing before the Court that he was depending
on her income also and the same was denied.
78. In keeping the material available before the
Court, this Court has to asses the loss of dependency.
Admittedly, no dispute with regard to the fact that
Smt.Ramya is the daughter of the petitioner and also the
wife of respondent NO.5 and with regard to the marriage
of deceased and respondent NO.5 and it is admitted that
they have no issues.
79. It is further important to note that PW-2, after
the marriage his daughter has joined her husband and
deceased was staying along with her husband and
SCCH 1 67 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
though PW-2 claimed that deceased was a tailor, no
document is produced. Respondent No.5 though he
claimed that she was a beautician and he categorically
admits that he has not produced any document to prove
that deceased was a beautician. He admits in the inquest
he had mentioned deceased was a house wife. Hence, I
am of the opinion that she is a house wife and not a
tailor nor a beautician.
80. Respondent No.2 is an Advocate and he
categorically admits that he is earning Rs.25,000/p.m.
but he has lost his wife at the age of 22 years and
marriage was solemnized in the year 2012, four years
after the marriage he lost his wife and the wife was also
taking care of his house affairs. The Apex Court also held
in several judgments that Court has to take income of the
house wife at Rs.7000/-p.m. Hence, this tribunal has
taken the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/p.m.
81. The petitioner has produced transfer certificate
of deceased which discloses her date of birth as
SCCH 1 68 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
28.2.1994 and S.S.L.C marks card and P.U.C. marks
card also discloses the same. Hence, deceased was 22
years as on the date of accident and the appropriate
multiplier applicable is 18.
82. In the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403
(Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held
that, even if a person is self employed, loss of future
prospects has to be taken into consideration to the extent
of 50% of actual income (after deduction of tax) for
persons below 40 years; 30% for age group of 40 to 50
years; 15% for age group of 50 to 60 years; but no
addition thereafter.
83. As per the above referred judgment the loss of
future prospects has to be taken into consideration and
hence, as the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of
accident, 50% of the income has to be added to the
monthly income of the deceased i.e., Rs.7,000/- and 50%
of it comes to Rs.3,500/- towards loss of future
prospects. It comes to Rs.10,500/-. (7,000+3,500/-).
SCCH 1 69 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
There is only one dependant . Hence, 50% of the income
of the deceased is to be deducted for personal expenses
i.e., Rs.5,250/-. It comes to Rs.5,250/-(10,500-5,250/-).
Thus, the annual loss of dependency works out to
Rs.63,000/-. The relevant multiplier applicable to the
case on hand would be 18. If we multiply the annual
income of the deceased with the 18 multiplier, it works
out to Rs.11,34,000/-, to which the petitioners are
entitled to under the head loss of dependency.
84. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ
5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad
Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent
judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706
(Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/-
as compensation to the family members (children and
family members other than wife) for loss of love and
affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc.,
and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widower of the
SCCH 1 70 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and
sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection,
social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost
incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In
this case also, since the deceased has left behind
husband and father, I deem it proper to award
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members
(children and family members other than wife) for loss of
love and affection, deprivation of protection, social
security etc., and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the
widow of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains
and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of
protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards
cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
85.The details of compensation, I propose to award
are as under:
Sl.No Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
.
1 Loss of dependency 11,34,000-00
2 Compensation to the family 1,00,000-00
members (children and
family members other than
SCCH 1 71 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
wife) for loss of love and
affection, deprivation of
protection, social security
etc.
3 Compensation to the widow 50,000-00
of the deceased for loss of
love and affection, pains
and sufferings, loss of
consortium, deprivation of
protection , social security
etc.
4 Cost incurred on account of 10,000-00
funeral and ritual expenses
Total 12,94,000-00
86. Now, the question arises before the Court is that
the claimants are the father and the husband of the
deceased. Admittedly, mother of the deceased also passed
away in the same accident and father has made a claim
for death of his wife and the respondent NO.5 filed a
separate petition before the Court and the same was
withdrawn in view of both the father as well as husband
are the parties in the present petition and this Court also
suggested the said claim can be considered in this
petition itself. It is important to note that father cannot
be termed as legal representative or dependant and
SCCH 1 72 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
though the father claims that he was also dependant on
the income of his daughter no material is placed before
the Court. I have already pointed out that deceased is a
house wife and respondent also denied the fact that his
wife was taking care of his father. It is important to note
that father of the deceased is none other than the
brother-in-law of respondent NO.5. The petitioner though
claims that he was dependant on the income of the
deceased, no material is placed before the Court. It is
categorically claims that daughter was staying with her
husband. Hence, I am of the opinion that father is not
entitled for any compensation under the head of loss of
dependency. However, the father is entitled for
compensation awarded under the head of loss of love and
affection since he has provided education and also
performed the marriage of his daughter and also he has
lost the daughter at the age of 22 years. Hence, I am of
the opinion that petitioner is entitled for compensation
awarded under the head of loss of love and affection.
SCCH 1 73 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
The respondent No.5 in M.V.C.No.5563/2016 is
entitled for the compensation of Rs.12,94,000/-. Out of
that petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- awarded
under the head loss of love and affection.
87. ISSUE No.3 (in M.V.C.No.5564/2016: It is
the case of the petitioner that on account of the accident
she has sustained injuries. In order to prove her case,
she relied upon Ex.P.60 wound certificate and it discloses
that he sustained injuries like swelling forehead on right
side, laceration over fore head, laceration on right hand.
Discharge summary which is marked at Ex.P.61
discloses petitioner took treatment as inpatient from
15.3.2016 to 17.3.2016. Diagnosis mentioned as mild
head injury. In the cross-examination she says she was
inpatient for a period of 2 days in Akash hospital.
It is the contention of the petitioner that she was working
as mason coolie and earning Rs.9,000/p.m. In the cross-
examination, it is suggested that she is falsely claiming
that she was earning Rs.9,000/p.m. as coolie and the
SCCH 1 74 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
said suggestion was denied. She has produced medical
bills to the tune of Rs.2,039/- and she has produced
medical prescriptions four in number. The petitioner has
not examined the doctor.
88. Now, let me appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence available on record The petitioner
has produced wound certificate which is marked at
Ex.P.60 and doctor has opined the injury is simple in
nature. Petitioner has produced medical bills to the tune
of Rs.2,039/- and the same is supported by
prescriptions. The petitioner also produced discharge
summary at Ex.P.5 which discloses he was admitted to
hospital on 15.03.16 to 17.03.2016 i.e., for a period of 2
days. For having considered all these aspects into
consideration it is a fit case to award global
compensation of Rs.20,000/- which includes pain and
suffering, medical expenses, incidental expenses such as
conveyance, food and nourishment , loss of income
SCCH 1 75 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
during the period of treatment , loss of amenities and
other expenses.
89. ISSUE No.3 (in M.V.C.No.5565/2016: It is
the case of the petitioner that on account of the accident
she has sustained injuries. In order to prove her case,
she relied upon Ex.P.21 wound certificate and it discloses
that he sustained injuries like laceration of knee , ear
bleeding. Discharge summary which is marked at
Ex.P.21 discloses petitioner took treatment as inpatient
from 18.3.2016 to 20.3.2016. In the cross-examination,
she says she was taken to Akash hospital and NRV
hospital. She says she was inpatient for a period of one
week at NRV hospital. She says she has lost the medical
records of the NRV hospital. She was not subjected to
any surgery. It is suggested that she is falsely deposing
before the Court that she is having difficulties as
mentioned in para 5 of her affidavit and the same was
denied. It is suggested that she is falsely claiming that
she was earning Rs.25,000/- from milk business.
SCCH 1 76 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
90. Now, let me appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence available on record The petitioner
has produced wound certificate which is marked at
Ex.P.21 and discharge summary at Ex.P.22. She says
she has lost the medical records. In the wound certificate
doctor has opined the injuries are simple in nature. The
petitioner also produced discharge summary at Ex.P.22
which discloses he was admitted to hospital on 18.03.16
to 20.03.2016 i.e., for a period of 2 days. For having
considered all these aspects into consideration it is a fit
case to award global compensation of Rs.40,000/- which
includes pain and suffering, medical expenses, incidental
expenses such as conveyance, food and nourishment ,
loss of income during the period of treatment , loss of
amenities and other expenses.
91. ISSUE No.3 (in M.V.C.No.5566/2016: It is
the case of the petitioner that on account of the accident
he has sustained injuries. In order to prove his case, he
SCCH 1 77 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
relied upon Ex.P.67 wound certificate and it discloses
that he sustained injuries like laceration over scalp,
laceration over ankle, abrasion over right eye brow.
Discharge summary which is marked at Ex.P.68
discloses petitioner took treatment as inpatient from
15.3.2016 to 17.3.2016. In the cross-examination, it is
elicited that he regained conscious at Tirupathi hospital
and he was taken treatment at Akash hospital,
Devanahalli. It is suggested that as per the wound
certificate he has sustained simple injuries and he has
denied the same. It is suggested that Ex.P.62 to 68 are
created for the purpose of this case and the same was
denied. It is suggested that he is falsely claiming that he
has spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medication
and the same was denied. He has produced medical bills
to the tune of Rs.2,667/- and he has produced medical
prescriptions five in number. The petitioner has not
examined the doctor.
SCCH 1 78 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
92. Now, let me appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence available on record The petitioner
has produced wound certificate which is marked at
Ex.P.67 and doctor has opined the injury is simple in
nature. Petitioner has produced medical bills to the tune
of Rs.2,667/- and the same is supported by
prescriptions. The petitioner also produced discharge
summary at Ex.P.68 which discloses he was admitted to
hospital on 15.03.16 to 17.03.2016 i.e., for a period of 2
days. For having considered all these aspects into
consideration it is a fit case to award global
compensation of Rs.20,000/- which includes pain and
suffering, medical expenses, incidental expenses such as
conveyance, food and nourishment , loss of income
during the period of treatment , loss of amenities and
other expenses.
93. ISSUE No.3: It is the case of the petitioner
that on account of the accident she has sustained
grievous injuries and she has relied upon wound
SCCH 1 79 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
certificate as per Ex.P.75 and it discloses that the
petitioner has sustained deformity of right hand,
laceration over nose, laceration over left knee. X-ray
shows fracture of nasal bone, fracture of ribs left 6th, 7th,
8th and 9th and the doctor has opined the injuries are
grievous in nature. Petitioner has produced discharge
summary at Ex.P.78 and it discloses that the petitioner
has sustained fracture of both bones right forearm,
multiple rib fracture left side, nasal bone fracture. During
the period of treatment she underwent ORIF with DCP
and both bones right forearm on 22.03.2016. She took
treatment as inpatient from 15.3.2016 to 28.03.2016. In
the cross-examination, it is suggested that she has
suffered only one simple injury and the said suggestion
was denied. It is suggested that the documents are
created for the purpose of getting more compensation
and the same was denied. It is suggested that advance
receipts are also included in his total bill and the said
suggestion was denied. For having considered the
SCCH 1 80 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
Ex.P.75 wound certificate, it is fit case to award
compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of Pain
and Sufferings.
94. Petitioner has examined PW-9 who is the doctor
and he has reiterated in his affidavit regarding nature of
injuries and the treatment provided to the petitioner. He
says he has suffered fracture of both bones right forearm,
multiple rib fractures, nasal bone fracture. He says
during the course of inpatient petitioner underwent
surgery for right forearm ORIF with DCP right radius and
ulna. By taking into account the arm component,
strength, hand component, he has assessed the disability
of right upper limb at 42.2% and whole body disability at
14%.
95. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the
cross-examination, he says he has assessed the disability
based on the Government of India Gazette notification.
He further says petitioner is under treatment but only
she requires a surgery for removal of implants. He admits
SCCH 1 81 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
after the age of 55 there will be a weakening of the bones.
It is suggested that there is no any loss of strength as
mentioned in his affidavit and the said suggestion was
denied. He admits that he has not assessed the
functional disability. He has not given any estimation for
future cost of surgery.
96. Now, let me appreciate both the oral and
documentary evidence. I have already pointed out
petitioner has sustained fracture of both bones right
forearm, multiple rib fractures, nasal bone fracture and
she had undergone ORIF with DCP right radius and ulna
and doctor has assessed the disability for right upper
limb at 42.2% and whole body 14%. On perusal of the
evidence, the disability assessed by the doctor is little on
higher side and it seems the petitioner is aged about 60
years and the disability assessed by him is on little
higher side, hence, I am of the opinion that the disability
suffered by the petitioner can be taken at 12% to whole
body.
SCCH 1 82 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
97. The petitioner claims that she was doing
agriculture and dairy farming and earning a sum of
Rs.25,000/p.m. The petitioner has produced Ex.P.72
Milk Producers pass book which stands in the name of
Narasappa. Petitioner has not produced any R.T.C. to
show that she was doing agriculture. Hence, this Court
can take the income of the petitioner at Rs.6000/-p.m.
since this accident occurred in the year 2016.
98.The petitioner has stated her age as 60 years in
the petition. The petitioner has produced notarized copy
of aadhar card and ration card. Ration card issued in the
year 2014. In the ration card age of the petitioner is
mentioned as 58 years and the same was issued in the
year 2012. Hence, petitioner was aged about 60 years as
on the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier
applicable is . Hence, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation under the head of loss of earning due to
disability as : Rs.6000x12x7x12/100 = Rs.60,480/- and
SCCH 1 83 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
the same is rounded off to Rs.60,500/-. Hence, I award
Rs.60,500/- towards loss of earning due to disability.
99. Regarding loss of income is concerned the
petitioner was inpatient for a period of 14 days i.e., from
15.3.2016 to 28.03.2016 and she could not earn for 4
months. Hence, I award Rs.24,000/- towards loss of
income during the treatment period .
100. The petitioner has produced medical bills to
the tune of Rs.72,321/- at Ex.P.74 and the prescriptions
at Ex.P.73. On perusal of the medical bills and
prescriptions both tallies and the bills are pertaining to
the petitioner . Hence, I have accepted the medical bills.
The same is rounded off to Rs.72,500/- . Hence, I award
Rs.72,500/- towards medical expenses.
101. The petitioner took treatment in the hospital as
inpatient from for a period of 14 days i.e., from 15.3.2016
to 28.03.2016 and she has sustained fracture of nasal
bone and fracture of ribs.. During that period she might
have spent some amount towards conveyance, food and
SCCH 1 84 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
nourishment etc., Hence, I award Rs.15,000/- as
compensation under the head of food and nourishment,
conveyance, attendant charges and other incidental
charges.
102. The petitioner is aged about 60 years and she
has to lead rest of her life with this disability of 12%. For
having taken said fact into consideration , I award
Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of amenities.
103. It is the case of the petitioner that she had
undergone fracture of right forearm, multiple rib fracture
and nasal bone fracture. During the inpatient period she
underwent surgery of ORIF with DCP right radius and
ulna. In the cross-examination, it is suggested to the
doctor that there was no need to remove the implants
since she has crossed more than 65 years and the said
suggestion was denied. For having taken note of the fact
that implants are in situ, I award a sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards future medical expenses.
SCCH 1 85 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
104. The details of compensation, I propose to
award are as under:
Head of Compensation Amount
l.
o.
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 50,000-00
2. Medical expenses Rs. 72,500-00
3. Loss of income during the Rs. 24,000-00
period of inpatient and period
of treatment.
4. Food and nourishment, Rs. 15,000-00
conveyance , attendant
charges, ambulance charges
and other incidental
expenses.
5. Future loss of earning due to Rs. 60,500-00
permanent disability
6. Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000-00
7. Future surgery Rs. 25,000-00
Total Rs. 2,42,000-00
105. Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court
reported in 2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout and others
Vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others), with
SCCH 1 86 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
regard to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the
compensation amount, in para 13 of the judgment, the
Apex Court held that Insurance Company is also liable to
pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of
application till the date of payment and also by following
the principles laid down in (2011) 4 SCC 481: (AIR 2012
SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of
Victims of Uphaar Tragedy). In view of the above
judgments with regard to the rate of interest, and also it
is settled law that while awarding interest on the
compensation amount, the Court has to take into
account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and
the rate of interest at 9% cannot said to be on the higher
side. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to interest at
the rate of 9% p.a.
106. As regards the liability is concerned, I have
already discussed while discussing issue No.1 and 2 and
the liability has been fixed on the respondent No.1 and 2
owner and insurer of the tempo traveler and hence, they
SCCH 1 87 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016
are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
However, primary liability is fixed on respondent No.2,
insurance company of the tempo traveler to satisfy the
award. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.
107. Issue No.4: In the result, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
MVC 5559/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 and 2.
The petition filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,44,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and SCCH 1 88 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
The Compensation amount is apportioned equally among the petitioners No.1 and 2.
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioners No.1 and 2, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in their respective names in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to them . MVC 5560/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 & 2.
The petition filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dismissed. SCCH 1 89 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.11,79,256/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:
Out of the total compensation amount, the petitioner NO.2 is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate interest awarded under the head of loss of love and affection and the same is ordered to be released in his favour.
The remaining compensation amount is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1.
SCCH 1 90 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 Out of the compensation amount to which the petitioner No.1is entitled, 50% with proportionate interest shall be kept in F.D. in his name in any nationalized or scheduled bank of his choice for a period of 5 years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to petitioner NO.1.
M.V.C.No.5561/2016:
The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 & 2.
The petition filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,33,680/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the SCCH 1 91 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:- Petitioner No.1 - husband - 30% Petitioner No.2 - daughter - 35% Petitioner No.3 - son - 35% Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 , 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of petitioner No.1 in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of his choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner No.1 .
As far as petitioners No.2 and 3, who are still minors, their portion of compensation amount is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of respective minor petitioners in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of the choice petitioner No.1, until they attain majority or for a period of five years whichever SCCH 1 92 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 is later, with liberty to the petitioner No.1 to withdraw interest once in 3 months on the deposits for the maintenance of minor petitioners No.2 and 3. Petitioner No.1 shall not create any encumbrances on the F.D.amount.
MVC 5562/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 & 2.
The petition filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.14,87,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and directed to SCCH 1 93 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled, Rs.4,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be kept in F.D. in her name in any nationalized or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 3 years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to petitioner.
MVC 5563/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 and 2.
The petition filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The respondent No.5 and petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,94,000/- with interest at SCCH 1 94 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows: Out of the total compensation amount, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate interest awarded under the head of loss of love and affection and the same is ordered to be released in his favour.
The remaining compensation amount is apportioned to the share of respondent No.5 Sri Radhakrishna, the husband of the petitioner.
SCCH 1 95 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 Out of the compensation amount , so apportioned in favour of the respondent No.5 , 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of respondent No.5 in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of his choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the respondent NO.5.
M.V.C.No.5564/2016:
The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 & 2 .
The petition filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the SCCH 1 96 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
As the compensation amount is meager, the same along with interest accrued thereon is ordered to be released to the petitioner .
M.V.C.No.5565/2016:
The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents NO.1 & 2.
The petition filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioner are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and directed to SCCH 1 97 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
As the compensation amount is meager, the same along with interest accrued thereon is ordered to be released to the petitioner .
M.V.C.No.5566/2016:
The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents NO.1 & 2.
The petition filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and directed to SCCH 1 98 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
As the compensation amount is meager, the same along with interest accrued thereon is ordered to be released to the petitioner .
M.V.C.No.5567/2016:
The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents NO.1 & 2.
The petition filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,67,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on 2,42,000/-from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and directed to SCCH 1 99 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
As the petitioner is aged 62 years the entire compensation amount with interest ordered to be released to the petitioner .
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case. Original of the judgment shall be kept in MVC No.5559/2016 and its copies are kept in MVC No.5560/16, 5561/16, 5562/16, 5563/16, 5564/16, 5565/16, 5566/16, 5567/16.
Draw decree accordingly (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of June 2017) (H.P.SANDESH,) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Nagamma P.W.2 : Narayanaswamy P.W.3 : Srinivas P.W.4 : Nagavenamma SCCH 1 100 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 P.W.5 : Shobha P.W.6 : Poojappa @ Chikkapoojappa P.W.7 : Muniyamma @ Munemma P.W.8 : Linganagowda Patil P.W.9 : Dr.Rakesh R.K.
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : Copy of FIR Ex.P-1(a): Translated copy of FIR Ex.P-2 : Copy of spot mahazar Ex.P-2(a) : Translated copy of spot mahazar Ex.P-3 : Copy of sketch Ex.P-3(a) : Translated copy of sketch Ex.P-4 : Accident inspection report Ex.P-5 : Inquest report Ex.P-5(a) : Translated copy of inquest report Ex.P-6 Copy of P.M.Certificate Ex.P.7 Accident information report Ex.P.8 Case diary, final report Ex.P.9 Notarised copy of election identity
card of PW-1(original compared) Ex.P.10 Notarised copy of election identity card of husband of PW-1 (original compared) Ex.P.11 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of PW-1 (original compared) Ex.P.12 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of husband of PW-1 (original compared) SCCH 1 101 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 Ex.P.13 Original Aadhaar card of deceased daughter Ex.P.14 Original T.C. of deceased Ex.P.15 SSLC marks card of deceased Ex.P.16 PUC marks card of deceased Ex.P.17 Madhyama Examination Certificate Ex.P.18 B.Com Marks cards of deceased (13) Ex.P.19 Beautician training certificate of deceased Ex.P.20 Appreciation certificate of deceased Ex.P.21 Copy of Wound certificate of PW-1 Ex.P.22 Discharge summary of PW-1 Ex.P.23 Copy of inquest report of deceased Parvathamma Ex.P.23(a) Translated copy of Ex.P.23 Ex.P.24 Copy of P.M.Report of deceased Parvathamma Ex.P.25 Inquest report of deceased Parvathamma Ex.P.25(a) Translated copy of Ex.P.25 Ex.P.26 Copy of P.M.Report of deceased Ramya Ex.P.27 Notarised copy of election identity card of deceased Pavathamma (original compared) Ex.P.28 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of deceased Parvathamma (original compared) Ex.P.29 Notarised copy of Election identity card Narayanaswamy (original SCCH 1 102 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 compared) Ex.P.30 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of Narayanaswamy (original compared) Ex.P.31 Notarised copy of School identity card of deceased Ramya (original compared) Ex.P.32 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of Naveen Kumar (original compared) Ex.P.33 Notarised copy of Election identity card of Naveen Kumar (original compared) Ex.P.34 Attested copy of T.C. of deceased Ramya (original compared) Ex.P.35 Attested copy of SSLC marks card of deceased Ramya Ex.P.36 Copy of Inquest report of deceased B.N.Sujatha Ex.P.36(a) Translated copy of Ex.P.36 Ex.P.37 Copy of P.M.Report Ex.P.38 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of deceased Sujatha(original compared) Ex.P.39 Notarised copy of ration card pertaining to M.V.C. No.5561/16 (original compared) Ex.P.40 Notarised copy of Election identity card of Srinivas (original compared) Ex.P.41 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of Srinivas (original compared) Ex.P.42 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card pertaining to M.V.C.No.5561/16 SCCH 1 103 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 (original compared) Ex.P.43 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card pertaining to M.V.C. No.5561/16 (original compared) Ex.P.44 Genealogical tree affidavit pertaining to M.V.C. No.5561/16 Ex.P.45 Copy of Inquest report of deceased B.M.Suresh Ex.P.45(a) Translated copy of Ex.P.45 Ex.P.46 Copy of P.M.Report of B.M.Suresh Ex.P.47 Notarised copy of driving licence extact of deceased B.M.Suresh Ex.P.48 Notarised copy of deceased B.M.Suresh (original compared) Ex.P.49 Notarised copy of driving licence of deceased B.M.Suresh (original compared) Ex.P.50 Notarised copy of election identity card of deceased B.M.Suresh (original compared) Ex.P.51 Notarised copy of election identity card pertaining to M.V.C. No.5562/16 (original compared) Ex.P.52 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card pertaining to M.V.C. No.5562/16 (original compared) Ex.P.53 Notarised copy of ration card pertaining to M.V.C. No.5562/16 (original compared) Ex.P.54 Genealogical tree affidavit pertaining to M.V.C. No.5562/16 SCCH 1 104 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 Ex.P.55 Notarised copy of election identity card of petitioner in M.V.C. No.5564/16 (original compared) Ex.P.56 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner in M.V.C. No.5564/16 (original compared) Ex.P.57 Notarised copy of ration card pertaining to M.V.C. No.5564/16 (original compared) Ex.P.58 Prescriptions (4) of petitioner in M.V.C No.5564/16 Ex.P.59 Medical bills of petitioner in M.V.C. NO.5564/16 Ex.P.60 Copy of wound certificate of petitioner in M.V.C No.5564/16 Ex.P.61 Discharge summary of petitioner in M.V.C No.5564/16 Ex.P.62 Notarised copy of election identity card of petitioner in M.V.C. No.5566/16 (original compared) Ex.P.63 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner in M.V.C. No.5566/16 (original compared) Ex.P.64 Notarised copy of ration pertaining to M.V.C. No.5566/16 (original compared) Ex.P.65 Prescriptions (5) in M.V.C. No.5566/16 Ex.P.66 Medical bills in M.V.C.No.5566/16 Ex.P.67 Copy of wound certificate of petitioner in M.V.C.NO.5566/2016 Ex.P.68 Discharge summary in SCCH 1 105 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 M.V.C.NO.5566/16 Ex.P.69 Notarised copy of election identity card of petitioner in M.V.C. No.5567/16 (original compared) Ex.P.70 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card pertaining to M.V.C. No.5567/16 (original compared) Ex.P.71 Notarised copy of ration card pertaining to M.V.C. No.5567/16 (original compared) Ex.P.72 Milk producers pass book pertaining to M.V.C. No.5567/16 (original compared) Ex.P.73 Prescriptions pertaining to M.V.C. No.5567/16 (original compared) Ex.P.74 Medical bills pertaining to M.V.C. No.5567/16 (original compared) Ex.P.75 Copy of wound certificate of petitioner in M.V.C. No.5567/16 Ex.P.76 Salary slip of deceased Sujatha Ex.P.77 Employment certificate of deceased B.M.Suresh Ex.P.78 Discharge summary of petitioner in M.V.C.No.5567/16 Ex.P.79 Authorisation letter Ex.P.80 Case sheet pertaining to M.V.C.No.5567/16 Ex.P.81 X-rays (3) Ex.P.82 OPD letter Ex.P.83 X-ray SCCH 1 106 MVC No.5559 to 5567/2016 Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
RW-1 Girisha M. RW-2 M.Vijayakumar RW-3 R.Radhakrishna RW-4 Ramakrishnareddy
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents: Ex.R.1 Copy of Policy Ex.R.2 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of deceased Ramya Ex.R.3 Notarised copy of ration card (original Compared Ex.R.4 Notarised copy of election identity card of deceased Ramya Ex.R.5 Notarised copy of driving licence .
(H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl., M.A .C.T. Bangalore